1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 10, 2018 to May 9, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a husband and wife who completed the marriage report on February 8, 1999.

B. From June 2017, the Defendant met C at an elementary school alumni group: (a) August 30, 2017; and (b) the same year.

9. On September 2017, C and C were aware of the fact that C was a woman with a child of whom C had a child of D in 19. The C and C had a sexual intercourse with C by not later than October 2017, with a well-known knowledge of the fact that C had a spouse by entering into a sexual intercourse with C, etc.

C. After the Defendant’s wife and C’s wrongful act was discovered, the Defendant’s wife demanded C to pay consolation money for such unlawful act and received KRW 30 million from C around January 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Witness D’s testimony, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 12, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) A third party’s liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of the married couple’s communal living, etc. In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple, thereby interfering with the maintenance of the married couple’s communal living, and infringing on the spouse’

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as entering into a sexual relationship with C with the knowledge of the fact that C was in a marital relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse of C by infringing upon the Plaintiff’s communal living life or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the Defendant’s tort, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff in money.