1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 15, 2017 to July 11, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed the marriage report on July 9, 2009 with Nonparty C.

B. The Defendant was in an incompetuous relationship, such as having been aware of while engaging in the same insurance business as C, and having sexual intercourses several times from January 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 3, Gap's evidence 4 and 5, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, Gap's evidence 6, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's communal life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a married couple's communal life by interfering with another person's communal life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, etc.). According to the aforementioned facts, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiff, inasmuch as C, even though having knowledge of the fact in a marital relationship with the Plaintiff, committed an unlawful act, thereby infringing on or interfering with the Plaintiff’s communal life, infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby suffering from mental pain.

B. Considering the period of marriage and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, the period and contents of the Defendant’s misconduct, the degree of failure in marriage, etc., which are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the above evidence and the purport of the entire arguments, the amount of consolation money shall be 12,00,000 won.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant’s defense against the Plaintiff regarding the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from April 15, 2017, which was the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff as damages for damages.