1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 12, 2018 to June 12, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on January 31, 1998.

B. The Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as committing a sexual intercourse in a telecom, etc. from around July 2006 and from around August 2018 to October 2018, with knowledge that he/she has a spouse C.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle, and the third party has a duty to inflict mental suffering suffered by the spouse. The third party has a mental suffering suffered by the spouse.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899).

According to the above facts, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the defendant was aware that C is a spouse, and the plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering due to such acts by the defendant.

The defendant is obligated to do so in money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

C. As to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable for, the amount shall be set at KRW 20,00,000, taking account of the various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as health class, the content, degree and period of the misconduct committed by the Defendant and C, the marriage and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, and the impact of the Defendant’s improper act on the Plaintiff’s marital life

The defendant is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 12, 2018 to June 12, 2019, which is the date of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of his/her performance obligation to the plaintiff from December 12, 2018 following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant as requested by the plaintiff as a result of the above illegal act.