The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 12, 2019 to October 8, 2020, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and D are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 26, 2006, and have two children under the sleep.

B. While running a dump truck driving business on April 2015, the Defendant became aware of D having worked as an employee of the gas station, and became aware of D with D’s spouse, and became aware of D’s spouse, and brought about a sexual relationship with D’s spouse continuously and several times by the time of the instant lawsuit, until the time of the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute or the purport of Gap's evidence and the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the plaintiff's claim is examined, and the third party shall not interfere with the marital common life equivalent to the essence of marriage by intervening in the marital common life of another person, causing the failure of the marital common life. The third party's act of infringing on or interfering with the marital common life equivalent to the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, causing mental distress to the spouse by infringing on his/her spouse's right as the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts, the Defendant’s act of maintaining a relationship with D with D while knowing that he/she had a spouse, and continuing to meet and having a sexual relationship with D, knowing that he/she had a spouse, constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff as an act infringing upon the Plaintiff’s common life with D or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the spouse’s rights as the spouse, and thereby, the Plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental suffering. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff in money.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff, the period and condition of marriage between the Plaintiff and D, family relationship such as children, the period of misconduct between the Defendant and D, the content and degree of the act, and the impact of the fraudulent act on the Plaintiff and D’s marriage.