1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 16, 2017 to January 16, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff completed the marriage report with C on December 2, 1991, and has two children and has maintained the marital life.

B. On July 2017, the Defendant knew of C through the Pesting website, and knew of C’s spouse, he/she would travel along with his/her spouse on the 14th day of the same month. From that time, he/she had sexual intercourses over five times from that time until August 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, 9 (if there are provisional numbers, including them; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A third party whose responsibility is established shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which corresponds to the essence of the marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by causing a failure of the married couple’s community 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 Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). Meanwhile, “illegal conduct by a spouse” means a wider concept, including the adultery, includes any and all unlawful conduct that does not reach a common sense, but does not fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of the husband and wife, and whether it constitutes an unlawful conduct ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the above act of the defendant by the defendant infringed on and interfere with the marital life between the plaintiff and C, and caused mental pain to the plaintiff by infringing on the plaintiff's right as his spouse. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.