The defendant's KRW 15,00,000 for the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from July 4, 2020 to October 20, 2020, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Upon completion of the marriage report with C around 2011, the Plaintiff has brought up his/her children together while living together as a married couple.

B. The Defendant came to know one another while working in the same workplace as C from around 2015 to August 2019, and committed an unlawful act, such as having been committed with C several times on the premise of a patriotic relationship with C even though he knows that C had a spouse from around 2017 to August 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which falls under the essence of marriage, by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s community 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 en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). “Unlawful conduct by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act means a wider concept including a adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, includes any unlawful conduct that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of good faith, and whether it constitutes an unlawful conduct ought to be evaluated

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). B.

Judgment

1 In full view of the facts acknowledged in paragraph 1 above A.

In light of the relevant legal principles of Paragraph (1), the defendant, knowing that he/she has a spouse, committed an illegal act with C, thereby infringing upon or impeding the maintenance of the marital life of the plaintiff and C, and thereby, the plaintiff, who is the spouse of C, suffered mental suffering is sufficient in light of the empirical rule.