1. The defendant's KRW 20,000,000 per annum for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 14, 2020 to November 20, 2020.

On December 5, 2008, the Plaintiff was a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on December 5, 2008, and the Defendant knew of C on the online with C on December 2, 2019, and committed several unlawful acts, such as actively expressing his/her spouse from January 7, 2020 to January 20, 200, by actively expressing the fact that C had a spouse. In the process, even though the Defendant committed the above unlawful acts against C with his/her husband D and promised not to contact with C, the Plaintiff continued to contact with C. Accordingly, D filed a damages lawsuit against D seeking a consolation money of KRW 50,00,00 with the court heading under 10941,00,000, and there is no dispute between the parties or may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as stated in subparagraphs 1 through 5.

According to the above, the defendant is liable for compensating for mental damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort, since he violated or obstructed the plaintiff's community life or the maintenance of the plaintiff's marital life and infringed the plaintiff's rights as his spouse.

Furthermore, considering the period and contents of fraudulent act which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments on the evidence mentioned above, the period of marriage between the plaintiff and C, the degree of failure in the marriage between the plaintiff and C, and the degree of mental suffering, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant as 20,000 won.

Therefore, the defendant, after the date of tort of KRW 20,00,000 and the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case filed by the plaintiff, from May 14, 2020 to November 20, 2020, is a year of 5% as stipulated in the Civil Act, which is the date of adjudication of this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment, it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation.