1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 21, 2016 to March 9, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 10, 2014.

B. C and the Defendant were in common knowledge, and from January 2016, they frequently exchanged conversations with each other through SNS, and around May 21, 2016, they maintained an inappropriate relationship, such as accepting to the motherel located in Ma in ethic City D.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

(a) The occurrence of liability for damages (1) Husband and wife shall live together and be under the duty to support and cooperate with each other;

(Article 826 of the Civil Act). Husband and wife, as a community which is mentally or physically combined, shall have the obligation to cooperate comprehensively with one another in order to maintain marriage as a marital community, and shall have the right to such obligation.

As such, as the content of the marital or marital life maintenance obligation, the married couple bears the sexual duty that should not commit any unlawful act.

Accordingly, if one side of the married couple commits an unlawful act, it becomes a ground for judicial divorce pursuant to Article 840 of the Civil Code, and one of the married couple is liable for damages caused by a tort against mental suffering that the spouse suffered.

On the other hand, a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living which is the essence of the marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing a failure of the marital life.

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 the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). (2) In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing facts of recognition are examined.