1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 3, 2017 to September 22, 2017.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a married couple with C on August 3, 2001.

B. From 2004 to 2004, the Defendant began to exchange private contacts with C even with the knowledge that C is a spouse. From around 2007 to 2007, the Defendant developed the travel together as a relationship with a sexual intercourse, such as having a sexual intercourse. However, even if the Plaintiff was found to have fraudulent act, the Defendant continued to reach 2016 until 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and each statement and image of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by participating in other person’s community life and causing failure to maintain the marital community. The third party’s act of infringing upon or interfering with the marital community life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse and causing mental distress to the spouse shall, in principle, constitute tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, the term “unlawful act” includes a wider concept that includes a adultery, and includes any unlawful act that does not reach the adultery, but does not fulfill the duty to assist the husband and wife, and whether it is an unlawful act or not shall be evaluated in consideration of specific matters and circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant committed an unlawful act continuously for a considerable period with knowledge that C is a spouse, and the defendant's act infringed upon the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C, or interfered with its maintenance. Thus, the defendant suffered mental suffering.