The defendant's 13,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 3, 2020 to November 23, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed the marriage report with C on April 14, 2000.

B. From May 2019, the Defendant knowingly committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse with C, with the knowledge that C was a father-child.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each branch number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of a married couple’s communal living, etc. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the either side of the married couple, and a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by infringing upon or maintaining a married couple’s communal living and by infringing on the right as the spouse’s right to it, in principle,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.

According to the above facts of recognition, C is a spouse, and the defendant, even though he is aware that he is the spouse, has a bad-wheeled relationship, thereby infringing on the plaintiff's rights as the spouse by obstructing the maintenance of the marital life and thereby infringing on the plaintiff's rights. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by

C. Furthermore, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 13 million in consideration of the health class, the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, the family relationship, the period in which the relationship with the non-humanity continues, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant's objection is raised as to the existence and scope of the obligation of the defendant from July 3, 2020, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case filed by the plaintiff against the plaintiff as to the plaintiff of KRW 13 million and its scope.