1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who is equivalent to the following amount ordered to pay the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the claim for damages are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In calculating consolation money due to a tort, the court shall also consider the victim's intentional act, negligence degree, motive for the harmful act, reason for the harmful act, the offender's property status, and attitude of the perpetrator after the illegal act in accordance with the principle of fair liability for damages, such as the victim's age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from the damage, degree of negligence, degree of negligence, etc., and degree of negligence of the victim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da77149 Decided December 24, 2009). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as having been comprehensively taken into account the facts acknowledged earlier and the respective entries and images of evidence Nos. 30 through 32 submitted in the trial and the overall purport of pleadings, including ① even up to the day the appellate court continues to exist, the period of unlawful acts, such as the Defendant’s continuation of marriage with D and the failure of marriage and maintaining the marital life of the Plaintiff D. ② The Defendant did not retire even if it was possible for the Plaintiff to have sufficiently committed such unlawful acts in the situation where the Plaintiff, who had come to know of such unlawful acts, was committed against the Plaintiff, and the instant lawsuit was brought. ③ Even though the Defendant appeared to have been aware of such unlawful acts, the Defendant did not seem to have any intention to mislead or reflect the Plaintiff, such as claiming compensation for damages due to defamation as a counterclaim. ④