1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 4, 2015 to January 11, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who reported the marriage on April 28, 201 with C and two minor children among them.

B. The Defendant: (a) from around 2014 to C and elementary school early 2014, found that the Plaintiff was aware of such inappropriate relationship; and (b) around May 20, 2015, the Defendant written a letter stating, “I will recognize all the errors so far, not only twice again, and will look at in the way of committing the crime to be committed in the future Dhumma and pets.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes tort in principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the facts of recognition, the Defendant’s wrongful act with C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s matrimonial relationship or causing emotional distress to the Plaintiff by interfering with its maintenance. As such, the Defendant constitutes tort against the Plaintiff.

The defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for tort to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant did not have met C after preparing a written statement, and the plaintiff's withdrawal after filing a divorce lawsuit against C expressed his/her intention not to hold the defendant liable for the divorce, and the plaintiff currently maintains a marital relationship with C, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim damages only on the grounds of the Defendant’s assertion, and otherwise, it does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The scope of damages and the period of marital life between the Plaintiff and C.