1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 16, 2019 to August 13, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 25, 2013, the Plaintiff and C are married couple who entered into a marriage report on August 4, 2014, and have only one child.

B. Around July 2013, the Defendant came to know of the existence of his spouse C through smartphone hosting displays, and even around that time, from around January 2019 to around January 2019, the Defendant provided several telephone conversationss, video conversationss, text messagess, etc. and provided several types of sexual intercourses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 14 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Husband and wife shall live together, and have the obligation to support and cooperate with each other;

(Article 826 of the Civil Act). The content of the duty of sharing a living together or the duty of maintaining a common life of both spouses and wife, which shall not engage in any unlawful act, shall bear the sexual duty

If one side of the married couple commits an unlawful act, the other side of the married couple shall be liable for damages caused by a tort against the mental suffering which the spouse has sustained.

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

An act of a third party who causes mental pain to the spouse by infringing on a marital life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, shall constitute a tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). “Cheating” in this context includes a wider concept, including the adultery, and includes any unlawful act that does not comply with the husband’s duty of good faith even if it does not reach the common sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 2

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed a fraudulent act with C and thereby committed a marital life between C and C.