1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 11, 2018 to April 18, 2019; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal spouse of C and C who completed the marriage report on February 14, 2012.

B. From June 2018, the Defendant, even after being aware that C is a spouse, entered into an illegal relationship with C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 18 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A) A third party’s liability for damages does not interfere with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person and causing failure of the couple’s communal living. A third party’s act of infringing a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, obstructing the maintenance thereof, and infringing a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) In light of the above legal principles, the above recognition is in principle a tort. According to the above recognition, the Defendant, even though he was aware that he was a spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the couple’s communal living between the Plaintiff and C, thereby causing emotional distress to the Plaintiff by interfering with its maintenance.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff monetary compensation for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Furthermore, in full view of the circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the scope of liability and the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable, the period and content of marital life between the Plaintiff and C, the details and duration of the Defendant’s misconduct, the extent of the failure of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, and the Plaintiff’s health condition, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 20 million

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant served the plaintiff with a copy of the complaint of this case as claimed by the plaintiff after the date of tort.