1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 1, 2016 to June 13, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C completed the marriage report on January 2, 2014.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware that C was a father-son, committed an unlawful act, such as going to death with C from August 2015, and going to death with C, and engaging in the same travel as, or having a body contact with C, as, a car page.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 through 6 (including virtual number), and the 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.

C. The defendant asserts that since the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C has already been settled to a considerable extent before the defendant's act, the plaintiff's act does not lead to the failure of the plaintiff's marital relationship.

However, each statement or image of Gap evidence Nos. 25, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 9 alone is insufficient to prove the above assertion by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

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 15 million.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for consolation money of KRW 15 million and the defendant.