1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 29, 2019 to January 31, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported their marriage on February 5, 1977, and have two children under the chain.

Since February 2018, the defendant knew of the fact that C had a legal spouse, and committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse, even though he knew of the fact that C had a legal spouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, and 6 evidence (including branch numbers for additional evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a marital life which corresponds to the nature of marriage, such as where he/she intervenes in a marital life of another person and causes a failure of a marital 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 causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s act infringed upon the Plaintiff’s community life or interfered with the maintenance thereof. Thus, the Defendant has a duty to pay back the Plaintiff’s emotional distress with money.

B. As to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate, the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate to the Plaintiff shall be KRW 20,000,00, in full view of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including health group, the content and degree of the Defendant’s unlawful act, the period, the marriage period between the Plaintiff and C, and the Defendant’s unlawful act, etc.

C. The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion was known to the fact that the defendant had a legal spouse at the time of the act of misconduct, but the relationship between the plaintiff and C had already been in a de facto failure, and C's intentional approach.