1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 and the following day shall be 5% per annum from August 2, 2018 to January 29, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a legal spouse who reported marriage with C on November 9, 2004.

B. Around 2018, the Defendant sent a message containing the following contents: “I would like to see.”, “I would like to see.”, “I would like to Love.”, “Fuler’s Love”, “Wuler’s Love”, “Cp will be fright so that I would not have any problem with our love,” and “I would like to be better in the future.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5 through 8, Gap evidence 11, 12, and Gap evidence 14 through 17 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A third party who has a liability for damages 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, causing failure of a couple’s communal living, etc. In principle, 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 one of the married couple, thereby infringing on the right as the spouse and causing mental distress to the spouse.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept that includes the adultery and includes all unlawful acts that do not reach a common sense but are not faithful to the husband and wife’s duty of mutual assistance, and whether it is an unlawful act or not should be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances according to specific cases.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant committed an illegal act continuously for a considerable period of time with knowledge that C is a spouse, and the Defendant’s act infringed upon the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C or interfered with its maintenance.

As such, the defendant is the defendant.