1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 25, 2016 to May 16, 2017.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on July 11, 2008, and the plaintiff and C have children D (E).

The Defendant, at the latest from February 2016 to February 2017, exchanged with C, and exchanged with C, etc.

The plaintiff maintains a matrimonial relationship with C until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 14, and 15, video and reproduction result, fact-finding results on the case corporation of this court, assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's spouse has been aware of the fact that Eul has a spouse, and thus, the plaintiff has a duty to pay 50,000,000 won for consolation money to the plaintiff.

In principle, the act that a third party who has established a liability for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with maintenance thereof and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, that does not reach the common sense, but does not fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of the husband and wife, and any unlawful act may be included therein. Whether it is an unlawful act or not should be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the above facts, the Defendant continued to communicate with C even though he/she knows that he/she is a spouse of C, and this constitutes a tort infringing upon the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as a spouse, and thereby, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain.