1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 13, 2018 to April 24, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legal married couple who completed the marriage report on March 28, 1992, and have two adult children and one minor child under the chain.

B. Around September 2011, the Defendant employed as an employee of a restaurant operated by C, and maintained a Buddhist relationship by knowing that C has a spouse, by maintaining a sexual intercourse between around 2012 and September 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, the Defendant, even though having knowledge of the existence of a spouse, committed unlawful act, such as committing a sexual intercourse with C, thereby infringing on the communal life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with its maintenance, infringing on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as his/her spouse, and thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as his/her spouse, is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff was suffering from severe mental pain, and thus, the Defendant has a duty to

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that he was forced to take sexual exploitation by coercion and intimidation and did not commit an unlawful act by voluntary intention. However, according to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant voluntarily stated that he had a relationship with C in a criminal case in which the defendant filed a complaint against C, and therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as having a relationship with C as alleged by the defendant.

B. Regarding the amount of consolation money within the scope of compensation, health team, details, period and degree of fraudulent act, the defendant and C.