1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 16, 2016 to July 11, 2017.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living which is equivalent to the nature of the marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s communal living by causing the failure of a married couple’s communal living.

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.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the verification of evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 5, evidence Nos. 8 through 13, evidence No. 26 through 28, evidence No. 14 through evidence No. 25 of this court, the plaintiff shall complete a marriage report on December 12, 1986 and have two children under the chain, and the defendant shall be found to have committed an unlawful act by even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse of C, due to the fact that he/she committed an illegal act by drinking up C from the end of 2014 to the end of 2015 to the end of 2015.

The Defendant asserts that the recording files of Gap evidence Nos. 14 through 25 and the recording records of Gap evidence No. 27 are recorded and recorded by third parties, such as the plaintiff, etc. in a confidential statement between C and the defendant, and that it cannot be used as evidence in a trial pursuant to Articles 14(2) and 4 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, since it constitutes the recording of conversations between others that are not disclosed under Article 14(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the recording files are recorded between others.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act with C while being aware that C has a spouse, thereby infringing on the common life of both the plaintiff and C, obstructing their maintenance, and infringing on the plaintiff's spouse's right as the plaintiff's spouse. Since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant's mental suffering is against the plaintiff.