1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 5, 2019 to June 24, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who reported the marriage on May 18, 2009 with C and C, and the Plaintiff and C have two married couples and Eves.

B. The Defendant maintained the relationship between golf lessons received from C, and the Defendant and C maintained the sexual intercourse from May 2018 to August 2019, and had sexual intercourses over several times.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant committed a tort by committing an unlawful act with C, who is the husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant paid consolation money of KRW 30,000,100 and delayed payment damages against the defendant.

The defendant alleged that he was in a relationship with C, but did not recognize that C had been married before he was served with the complaint of this case, and that there was no intention or negligence constituting a tort.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the either party of the married couple, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse constitutes tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) In full view of each of the following circumstances acknowledged as comprehensively taking into account: (a) evidence Nos. 12 and 13; and (b) the witness’s testimony and the entire purport of oral argument, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the spouse was a spouse while committing an unlawful act, such

Such unlawful act by the defendant constitutes a tort since it constitutes a tort since it infringes on the common life of the couple between the plaintiff and the F, interferes with the maintenance thereof, and infringes on the right as a spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is true.