1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as annual 5% from December 18, 2014 to June 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on April 30, 1998, and two children who are minors under the chain.

B. The defendant knew that C was married, and entered into an illegal relationship with C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 9, 12, 14 through 19 (including provisional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person's community 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). According to the facts recognized earlier, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as having knowledge of C’s spouse being a spouse, thereby leading to travel.

The above act is an act that infringes on the plaintiff's marital life or interferes with the maintenance thereof, and it is clear that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to care for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

B. Furthermore, the scope of the liability for damages and the scope of the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C due to the Defendant’s unlawful act is recognized to have been somewhat broken down and suffered considerable mental pain. However, the Plaintiff and C still maintain a normal marital relationship, and the Defendant’s participation is difficult to view that the degree of participation is superior to C, such as the Defendant’s failure first and actively leading the instant unlawful act, etc.