1. The Defendant’s KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from November 2, 2017 to April 19, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the marriage report on March 28, 2014 with C and one minor child among them.

B. Around November 2015, the Defendant first known C, the president of the rental car company, who was dispatched to the site after having suffered a traffic accident, and continued to have an inhuman relationship with C by entering and departing from the start of the teaching system with C from January 2016 to April 2017, and making an overseas trip, etc., and around January 2017, the Defendant was pregnant of C’s child and born.

C. Although the Defendant did not know that C had a spouse, around August 2016, the Defendant became aware of the fact that C had a spouse, and C was a pro rata in the Republic of Korea with C and the Philippines around the end of his overseas travel.

On April 15, 2017, the Plaintiff received Kakao Stockholm messages from the Defendant and became aware of the relationship with the Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In principle, a third party who is liable to compensate for damage, by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes tort.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant continued to commit an illegal act with C while knowing the circumstance of his spouse, and it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the violation of the plaintiff's common life with C with C, so the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money according to his mental suffering to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant began with the teaching system without knowledge of C’s difficulty, continued to lead to the relationship between C and C, and was treated unfairly during the teaching process, and tort liability should be denied.