1. The Defendant’s annual period from July 23, 2016 to the final judgment of this case is from 13,000,000 won to Plaintiff A.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 29, 1989, Plaintiff A completed the marriage report with E on April 29, 1989, and Plaintiff B and C were children between E and E.

B. The Defendant, even though being aware of the existence of a spouse E, committed an unlawful act, such as living together after the teaching system from December 201, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 6, 8, 14, 17, 18, 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff A's claim (1) the defendant, even though he is aware that he is the spouse of the plaintiff, maintained the relationship with E and inhumanity. As above, the third party's act of infringing on the marital life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with its maintenance, and infringing on his spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005). Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's mental suffering in money.

(2) Considering the various circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the health team, the marriage period of the Plaintiff A and E, the content and duration of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and E, and the impact of the said unlawful act on the family relationship, the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 13,00,000.

B. Unless there exist special circumstances, such as (i) the third party (or the injured party) who committed adultery with the Plaintiff B and C’s claim is not liable for tort liability in relation to the child’s relationship with the child, barring special circumstances, such as raising, protecting, or actively preventing the female’s children from bringing up, protecting, or educating the child.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 delivered on May 13, 2005). (2) However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone prevents the Defendant from actively protecting and educating the Plaintiff B and C, who are his children.