The defendant's KRW 15 million to the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from July 23, 2020 to March 25, 2021.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a spouse under law who completed the marriage report with C on October 4, 2006.

B. From November 2019, the Defendant knowingly committed unlawful acts such as sexual intercourse with C, with the knowledge that C was a father-child.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A. A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person and causing failure of a couple’s communal living. A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the either side of the married couple. A third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the either side of the married couple and thereby infringing on his/her right as the spouse and causing mental distress to the spouse, in principle, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu 2997, Nov. 20, 201). (b) According to the above facts of recognition, C is a person who has a spouse, and the defendant is aware that he/she is his/her spouse, even though having knowledge that he/she is his/her spouse, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as the actor, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental distress suffered by the Plaintiff.

(c)

B. It is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 15 million in consideration of the health team, the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, the family relationship, the period in which the relationship with the non-wheeled family continues, and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, as to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable for.

(d)

Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation from July 23, 2020, which was the day after July 23, 2020, which the Plaintiff seeks against KRW 15 million and the Plaintiff’s duplicate of the complaint of this case.