1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from September 10, 2019 to January 7, 2020, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C completed the marriage report on May 1, 2018.

B. The Defendant knowingly committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse with C, from the beginning of 2019, even though C was aware that his father is a male.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8, purport of whole pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.

According to the facts of recognition under Paragraph (1), the plaintiff is obvious in light of the empirical rule that he/she suffered considerable mental suffering due to the infringement of marital life due to an unlawful act between the defendant and C, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay compensation for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

3. In full view of the marriage period between the Plaintiff and C, the contents and duration of the Defendant’s misconduct, and other circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 10 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until January 7, 2020, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date following the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, from September 10, 2019, to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's tort.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are accepted.