1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 25, 2018 to February 14, 2019, and the following.

1. The plaintiff and C are legal couple who completed the marriage report on June 30, 2015. -

The defendant, as a workplace bonus of C, knew of the fact that C is a spouse of C, was the same as C, but from the end of 2017 to the end of April 2018, the defendant provided a converging with C and provided a converging.

The Defendant left the workplace, which was accompanying the Plaintiff’s strong apology with respect to the said unlawful act, and went away from the workplace in the sense of responsibility for the said unlawful act upon the Plaintiff’s strong demand.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the 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 Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, etc.). According to the above basic facts, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as intercomcing with C while being aware that C is a spouse.

This constitutes an unlawful act that infringes on a marital life contrary to the essence of marriage or interferes with the maintenance thereof and infringes on the rights of the plaintiff's spouse.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to do so in money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Considering the various circumstances indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the content, degree, and period of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, the impact of the said unlawful act on the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, and the situation of withdrawal from the company accompanying the Plaintiff, which can be known from the above basic facts, the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff is reasonable to determine as KRW 3,00,000.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.