1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 7,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 30, 2020 to June 10, 2020, and thereafter.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 19, 1987, the Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on November 19, 1987, and has two children.

B. The Defendant became aware of C while running a singing practice room.

C은 휴대전화에 피고의 번호를 ‘D’으로 저장한 후, 2017. 9.경 피고에게 ‘즐거운 이슬이를 위하여 열심이 마시자 마시자ㅋㅋ~~^^’, ‘자기야 목소리 들어도 돼’, ‘자갸 잘자고 큰꿈꿔’와 같은 문자메시지를 보냈고, 이에 대하여 피고는 ‘ㅎ자기땜시웃었냉~~~~’, ‘응’이라고 답변하는 문자메시지를 보냈다.

C. Around September 2017, the Defendant visited C and E to make a book, and around August 18, 2019, the Defendant made a two-day trip to Gangwon-do, along with C and branchs.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 6, 7 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The husband or wife of the liability for damages bears the duty of good faith to not engage in a fraudulent act, and the "unlawful act" in this case includes all unlawful acts which are not faithful to the husband or wife's duty of good faith even if they do not reach the marital relationship. If one of the husband or wife commits a fraudulent act, the husband or wife shall be liable to compensate for damages caused by the spouse's mental distress.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of judgment. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Supreme Court on May 29, 2015