1. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 16,00,00 to the Plaintiff is 5% per annum from December 15, 2015 to August 16, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 20, 2014, the Plaintiff and C around September 20, 2014 completed the marriage report on November 25, 2014, and there is no child between C and C.

B. From March 2014 to April 2014, the Defendant, who was a workplace of C, begins with C and a private person, knowing that C is going to enter into marriage with the Plaintiff.

From July 2014 to August 2014, C had a sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff. From February 2013 to September 2015, C had a sexual intercourse with C several times with the Plaintiff, and around December 2014, C had a sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, the entry of Gap 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the illegal act of the spouse means more than the adultery;

As a broad concept, all illegal acts that do not reach the gap between husband and wife but are not faithful to the marital duty of husband and wife may be included therein, and whether it is an illegal act or not shall be assessed in consideration of the degree and situation of the specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). B.

According to the above facts of recognition, C, who is the spouse of the plaintiff, has abandoned the duty of good faith as a husband and wife, committed an unlawful act including a sex act with the defendant, and the defendant actively participated in such unlawful act, thereby infringing the plaintiff's spouse's right as the plaintiff's spouse. It is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the defendant's joint tort, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for all mental damage suffered by the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor in money

The defendant alleged that C tried to adjust the relationship with C after the plaintiff was married, but C was not settled due to the attachment of C, but the defendant's domestic affairs.