1. The defendant's KRW 15,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from January 15, 2020 to May 21, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who reported the marriage on May 30, 2014.

B. On November 2018, the Plaintiff found the mobile phone opened and used separately from the previous mobile phone used by C, and found the Kakao Stockholm message given and received from the above mobile phone by C.

In the above Kakakao message, the Defendant was stored as “involuntary B”, and the Defendant and C sent the following expressions: (a) referring one another as “self” or “comfore”; and (b) referring one another as “voluntary.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person's community life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach the common sense but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance. Whether it is an unlawful act or not should be assessed in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on the specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant knowingly committed an unlawful act with C with the knowledge that C is a spouse, thereby infringing on, or interfering with, marital life falling under the essence of marriage, and having the right as the plaintiff's spouse for marital community life with C.