1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 29, 2019 to October 27, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 5, 2009 and have two children under the chain.

B. From October 15, 2009, prior to the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, the Defendant began to teach with the customer as a customer. Even after the marriage, even after being aware that C has a spouse, the Defendant continued to engage in a sexual intercourse with C in around October 2018 and around November 2018, with knowledge that C has a spouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, and 11 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number) or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the defendant committed an unlawful act with C and thereby infringed or interfered with the maintenance of the marital relationship with C, the defendant has a duty to bring the plaintiff to money the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff.

B. When comprehensively considering the various circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as health team, the contents, degree and period of the above misconduct, the marriage period and family relation of the plaintiff and C, and the defendant's improper act, as to the amount of consolation money, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money which the defendant is liable to compensate to the plaintiff as KRW 15,00,000.

C. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 15,00,00 and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from August 29, 2019, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to October 27, 2020, which is the day of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation of this case, and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.