1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2009, the Plaintiff (1978) had D (209) with C (1980) on May 4, 2009 as a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C (1980).

B. Meanwhile, around 2018, the Defendant met C by chance.

The defendant made a frequent telephone conversation with C from June to August 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant committed unlawful acts, such as maintaining internal relations with C, the wife of the Plaintiff, or conducting independent telephone conversations.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered mental suffering.

The plaintiff seeks payment of consolation money of KRW 30,000,100 to the defendant.

3. Determination

(a) Husband and wife shall have a duty to comprehensively cooperate and have a right to such duty, in order to maintain marriage as a marital life, in cooperation and protection as a community combining mentally, physically or economically;

As such, as the content of the marital or marital life maintenance obligation, the married couple bears the sexual duty that should not commit any unlawful act.

If one side of the married couple commits an unlawful act, the other side of the married couple shall be liable for damages caused by a tort against the mental suffering which the spouse has sustained.

On the other hand, a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which is the essence of the marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by interfering with another person’s community life.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu241).

However, Gap's No. 4 (C mobile phone call details), Gap's No. 5 (Defendant's writing letter), and Gap.