The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 8, 2019 to June 3, 2020 and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff and C have two children (in 2006, 2010s, 2010) as a legally married couple who completed a marriage report.

B. Around 2009, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that he/she was a spouse to C, who became aware of the Defendant’s work as a drinking house guest, continued to have a sexual intercourse with C for about seven years from 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 8 evidence, witness D's statement, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). 2) According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant is liable to compensate for emotional distress inflicted upon the Plaintiff, inasmuch as, even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse, he/she has committed an unlawful act with C for a long time, thereby infringing on or interfering with the Plaintiff’s community life by committing a long period of time.

B. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the scope of damages and the marriage period and family relations of the Plaintiff and C, the contents, period, and degree of fraudulent act of the Defendant and C, and the circumstances after the discovery of fraudulent act, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff as KRW 20,000

The defendant claims that the defendant should limit the defendant's liability by reflecting the plaintiff's responsibility that the possibility of criticism of C, who wants the teaching system with the defendant even though the plaintiff's spouse had a common relationship with C, is much more likely to be criticized. However, in this case where the defendant sought damages for infringement of the plaintiff's common life with C, the plaintiff has a common relationship with C.