The defendant's 15,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 15, 2020 to November 30, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed the marriage report with C on October 26, 2011.

B. From October 2019, the Defendant knowingly committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse with C, with the knowledge that C was her father-Nam.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including each branch number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(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, etc. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the either side of the married couple, and a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by infringing upon or maintaining a married couple’s communal living and by infringing on the right as the spouse’s right to it, in principle,

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

According to the above facts of recognition, C is a spouse, and the defendant, even though he is aware that he is the spouse, has a bad-wheeled relationship, thereby infringing on the plaintiff's rights as the spouse by obstructing the maintenance of the marital life and thereby infringing on the plaintiff's rights. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by

C. Furthermore, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 15 million in consideration of the health class, the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, the family relationship, the period in which the non-wheeled relationship continues, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant raised an objection as to the existence and scope of the obligation from April 15, 2020, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case filed by the plaintiff against the plaintiff of KRW 15 million and the plaintiff of this case.