1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 12, 2018 to July 25, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 28, 2005, the Plaintiff and C have two children as legal married couple who reported marriage.

B. The Defendant committed an unlawful act from September 2015 to October 2018, by being aware of the existence of C’s spouse as an employee of C’s company, such as investing in the hotel together with C, with C.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings (the defendant asserts that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is not admissible since it was illegally collected by the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to prove that the above evidence was illegally collected as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above argument is without merit).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) According to the above acknowledged facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with the spouse of the Plaintiff, thereby infringing on the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C, or interfering with its maintenance, thereby suffering mental pain to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay monetary damage suffered by the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C was already broken down and that it was impossible to recover. However, at the time of the Defendant’s wrongful act, the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C was actually broken down and its substance did not exist any longer.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to readily conclude that it was either impossible or impossible to recover objectively, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(b).