1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from September 18, 2018 to January 24, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a de facto marital couple with C on January 13, 2018 and a de facto marital couple who makes a marriage and lives with community life.

B. On March 2018, the Defendant came to know of C in a golf driving range, and established an inappropriate relationship, such as having sexual intercourses over a stop until April 2018, with knowledge that C was married.

C. C continues to be in a relationship with the Defendant, and is currently living together with the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap 1-6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of a married couple’s communal living by participating in another person’s marital life. A third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple, thereby infringing on his/her right as a spouse and causing mental distress

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). B.

According to the above facts, the defendant has a duty to compensate for mental damages suffered by the plaintiff as a tort, since he violated the plaintiff's right as a de facto spouse by entering into an inhumanity relationship with C even with the knowledge that C is a married person, thereby interfering with the maintenance thereof.

C. Furthermore, the amount of consolation money is reasonable to be determined as KRW 10,000,00, considering all of the health groups, the period of marital life of the Plaintiff and C, the family relationship, the period in which the relationship with the bad will continue, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case.

3. If so, the Defendant’s argument is reasonable as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s duty of performance from September 18, 2018, on the record that it is clear that it was the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff.