1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 19, 2018 to May 2, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 1, 199, the Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 1, 199, and have two minor children.

B. Around 2016, C became aware of the Defendant’s membership in a company run by the Defendant, and the Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of his/her spouse, has maintained an unlawful relationship, such as joining C with a police officer at the beginning of 2017, or giving and receiving any message from time to time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, and 9, each entry or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The act of a third party making a judgment on the cause of the claim, which infringes on or interferes with common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage and infringes on the right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of paternity, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff for consolation money of KRW 15 million due to tort damages and the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as sought by the Plaintiff is the date of the judgment of this court.