Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 25,00,000 against the Plaintiff and its related costs from June 29, 2019 to September 18, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and C have been married for about 17 years with 1 her child (2008) as a husband and wife who reported their marriage on February 11, 2004.

B. The Defendant began with C around November 2017, which was employed as an employee at C’s main points operated by C, and maintained C’s inhumanity relationship.

C. On January 10, 2018, the Defendant sent a text message recognizing C’s inhumanity relationship to the Plaintiff, and sent repeatedly phone calls or text messages to the Plaintiff without setting a night time from around the time to April 22, 2019. From around October 2, 2018 to December 22, 2018, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff and C’s residence without permission.

On May 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional injunction against access with the Defendant (the Changwon District Court 2019Kahap10259). On June 11, 2019, the said court rendered a decision to prohibit the Defendant from accessing the Plaintiff within 100 meters of access, coercion of interview, visiting residence, and maintaining a peaceful life, and to order the Defendant to pay KRW 200,000 per each violation at the time of violation.

(hereinafter “instant provisional disposition order”). Around August 31, 2019, the Defendant called the Plaintiff in violation of the instant provisional disposition order.

E. The marriage between the Plaintiff and C continues to exist until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as well as the whole pleadings, of Gap's evidence (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) An act that a third party who has a liability for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes a tort;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015).