1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 and annual interest thereon from April 3, 2019 to February 24, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed the marriage report with C on November 4, 2014.

B. From around 2016, the Defendant knowingly committed unlawful acts such as sexual intercourse with C, with the knowledge that C had left Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4, 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 is a spouse with the knowledge that C is a spouse, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's right as the spouse by impeding the maintenance of the marital life and thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's right as the spouse. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff as a tort.

C. Furthermore, considering all the facts revealed in the arguments of this case, the amount of consolation money is reasonable to determine as KRW 15 million, considering the health class, the period of marital life of the Plaintiff and C, the family relationship, the period in which the relationship with a bad will continue, and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case.

Therefore, from April 3, 2019 to February 24, 2020, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which the plaintiff seeks against the plaintiff, the defendant raised a dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation.