1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from September 8, 2018 to April 26, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 29, 1977, and have three children under the chain.

B. C and the Defendant maintained a special relationship for a considerable period of time, and went through a trip several times in the process and went to the telecom.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in case of a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes tort in principle.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the aforementioned facts, the Defendant, even though having knowledge of the existence of a spouse, committed an unlawful act with C with C, thereby infringing upon a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage or impeding the maintenance thereof, infringing upon the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the spouse, and thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s right as the Plaintiff’s spouse, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff was suffering from severe mental pain, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that C was aware of the fact that C was the father-Nam and that C had a spouse, but according to each video (including each number) in the evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the defendant should be deemed to have known that C had a spouse, and even if C was the spouse and the plaintiff had access to the family, the defendant continued to maintain a relationship with C after C became aware of the fact that C was the father-Nam, and therefore, the defendant's argument in this part is not accepted.

B. The Defendant is liable for damages.