1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 22, 2019 to July 2, 2020, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff has three children of 2009, 2012, and 2014 under the chain as a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on February 23, 2009.

B. Around March 2018, the Defendant, upon introduction of C from his/her friendships, has established an inappropriate relationship with C from May 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, video, purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, despite being aware of the circumstances in which the marital relationship between C and C is maintained between C and the plaintiff, maintained an inappropriate relationship with C, and it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered severe mental pain. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

C. Around August 1, 2019, the Defendant alleged that C was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had found his/her residence in the Defendant, and that C was not liable for damages since the relevant relationship with C was organized thereafter. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

Rather, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the video of the evidence and evidence No. 3 as seen earlier, namely, when the Plaintiff went to the Defendant’s residence on August 1, 2019, the Defendant did not engage in the Plaintiff’s act, such as talking that C was unaware of the fact that C was the father’s son, and that C was dead until that time.