1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 9, 2020 to August 21, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on September 7, 2016, and has two minor children between C and C.

B. From March 2020, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as her having knowledge of the fact that C is a son, leading C and her to the telecom, or leading Jeju-do travel for 2 days around March 22, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes tort in principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant knowingly committed an unlawful act with C with the knowledge of the circumstance that C’s spouse exists, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s community life and interfering with the maintenance thereof.

As such, the defendant has a duty to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

B. As to the scope of damages and the amount of damages, comprehensively taking account of various circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as health team, the Plaintiff and C’s period of marriage and family relationship, the background leading up to the commission of the unlawful act by the Defendant and C, details and period of the unlawful act, and circumstances after the commission of the unlawful act, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff as KRW 1

Therefore, the defendant is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 9, 2020 to August 21, 2020, which is the date of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation as to the plaintiff's delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the plaintiff, as a result of the tort committed against the plaintiff.