1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 8, 2015 to January 27, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff and Nonparty C, who completed the marriage report in September 1992, is the married couple, and the Defendant, despite being aware of the spouse from March 2015 to May, 201, continued contact with C with C, and committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourses several times, may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; and (b) there is no evidence in subparagraphs 1 through 4; and (c) the witness’s testimony and arguments as a whole.

B. 1) Determination 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on a married 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, thereby constituting a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). 2) In light of the facts acknowledged above, the Defendant’s act of having committed a tort with C constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, and thereby, the Plaintiff appears to have suffered mental pain. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff.

3. Furthermore, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 7 million in full view of the period and attitudes of the Defendant’s misconduct and the degree of infringement of the marital life between the Plaintiff and C.

C. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion argues that he had an emotional exchange with C and did not commit an unlawful act. However, even according to the defendant's argument, C continued contact with his mother while being aware of the fact that he was a woman, performed drinking, drinking alcohol, and mutual emotional exchange. This is a wrongful act that infringes on the marital life or interfered with the maintenance of the marital life by intervening in the couple's community life combined in itself, and even if there was an agreement between the defendant and C, C.