1. The defendant's KRW 5,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from April 1, 2020 to August 28, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C on January 2, 2012, and has two children among them.

B. Around September 2019, the Defendant knew that C is a legally spouse, and had sexual intercourse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the aforementioned facts, the Defendant, even though having knowledge that C is a spouse, committed an unlawful act with C, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s community life or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse, barring any special circumstance, is obliged to engage in the Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's improper act does not constitute a tort against the plaintiff since the defendant's marital relationship between the plaintiff and the C was "a situation in which it is objectively impossible to recover from the failure of marital life" before the defendant had a marital relationship with C, but since there is no evidence to support it, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Considering the marriage period and family relation between the Plaintiff and C, the degree and period of fraudulent act, the influence of the said fraudulent act on the Plaintiff’s couple’s communal living, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff is reasonable.