1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from February 1, 2019 to November 14, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 199, the Plaintiff and C have two children under the chain of a husband and wife who reported their marriage on June 29, 199.

B. After the Defendant resided in an apartment building like the Plaintiff and became aware of C from April 2015, the Defendant committed an unlawful act while maintaining C’s legal spouse despite being aware of the fact that C had a spouse.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant and C promised the Plaintiff to not meet with each other after the occurrence of an illegal act on February 2016, but continued to rest again. On January 6, 2019, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter to the effect that it would not meet with C on January 6, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 26 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s communal life. A third party who, in principle, infringes on or interferes with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, thereby infringing on his/her right as the spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as instigating with the knowledge of the fact that C was a marital relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as a spouse by interfering with the Plaintiff’s common life of the Plaintiff and C, or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain due to the Defendant’s tort, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay a money or consolation for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and C’s period of marital life, Defendant and C’s wrongful act.