1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 4, 2014 to November 29, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on February 3, 1994.

B. The Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as having been aware that C had a spouse by marriage, from January 2014 to April 4, 2014, by passing through several occasions in C and Moel, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. We examine the judgment, and the third party's act of infringing on a couple's common life falling under the essence of marriage or impeding the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, and thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse constitutes a tort. As seen above, the defendant's act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and the defendant has a duty to pay monetary suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 15,00,000, considering various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as health group, the marriage period between the Plaintiff and C, the content and duration of the misconduct committed by the Defendant and C, and the influence of the misconduct on the family relationship.

B. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 15,00,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 4, 2014, which is the date of the ruling of this case, to November 29, 2018, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and thus, it is dismissed as the remaining claim is without merit.