1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 11, 2015 to September 27, 2017.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 25, 2008, and have two children (2010, 2012) among them.

B. C and the Defendant were public officials, and C were serving in the Dongdaemun-gu Office D from May 2014, and the Defendant served as C’s trading team leader from July 2014 to July 2014.

C. From November 2015 to December 2012, 2016, the Defendant continued to have a travel with C several times from November 2015 to December 2016, and provided meals with C’s children or went to play parks.

On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against C (Seoul Family Court 2015dhap42827) on November 27, 2015, and withdrawn it on April 11, 2017, but again filed a divorce lawsuit (Seoul Family Court 2017dhap34660) on July 6, 2017.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 30, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including additional number), and the plaintiff's assertion as to the ground of claim as to the whole purport of the argument, the defendant committed an unlawful act with C, which is the plaintiff's spouse, and the plaintiff suffered mental loss. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff compensation for tort damages amounting to 50,000,000 and damages for delay.

(4) In this case, the court below held that the plaintiff's marital relationship between the plaintiff and C has reached a failure due to the defendant's improper act, and it does not constitute a tort where the third party, who has established the liability for damages, infringes on the marital life falling under the essence of marriage or interferes with the maintenance thereof and infringes on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). Examining the facts recognized earlier in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant is aware that C is a spouse.