The defendant's KRW 20 million to the plaintiff is 5% per annum from October 6, 2020 to March 4, 2021.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on February 28, 2002, and the two are minor children.

B. On October 2019, the Defendant came to know C while working in the same company as C, and entered into an inappropriate relationship, such as taking the straws and flass with C while teaching with C from around October 2019, bringing about the straws and flass chairss in the officetels where C resides, expressing the straws in the letter and flass, and affixing a photograph flass.

(c)

On January 2020, the plaintiff was put in the officetel C, but first observed the defendant, and became aware of the teaching system between the defendant and C.

[Recognition of Fact] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 16, voice and video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In principle, a third party who was liable for damages caused emotional distress to a spouse by committing an unlawful act with a spouse and infringing on the communal life of the couple falling under the essence of marriage and impeding the maintenance of the marital life and his/her spouse's right as the spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, even though he/she was aware that he/she was a spouse of C, committed an unlawful act, thereby infringing on the common life of the plaintiff and C, interfering with their maintenance, and thereby causing emotional distress to the plaintiff by infringing on the plaintiff's right as the spouse of the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu241

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

As to this, the defendant did not know that C was a father-child, but did not know that C was the father-child, and after he became aware that C was the father-child.

However, according to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the whole theory, the defendant, around January 2020, knew that C’s officetels had the plaintiff and C was the father-Nam. The defendant also around April 10, 2020.