1. The defendant's KRW 25,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from February 14, 2020 to October 22, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

가. 원고는 1994. 4. 13. C과 혼인신고를 마친 법률상 부부로서 슬하에 성년 자녀 1명 및 미성년 자녀 1명을 둔 사실, 피고는 C에게 법률상 배우자가 있음을 알면서도 2008.경, 2009.경, 2017.경 C과 성관계를 하고, 2015.경에는 C과 함께 해외여행을 하는 등 2017.경까지 C과 부정행위를 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없는바, 피고는, C으로부터 원고와의 이혼에 관한 이야기를 듣고, 거의 졸혼(卒婚) 상태라는 말을 듣고 교제를 시작하게 된 것이라고 주장하고 있으나, 이를 들어 피고가 불법행위책임을 부인하고 있는 것은 아니고, 위자료 산정에 참작하여야 한다는 취지에 불과한 것으로 보인다.

As a matter of principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, which constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from a tort.

B. The Defendant’s defense that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages against the Defendant prior to February 3, 2010, ten years prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, among the tort alleged by the Plaintiff, has expired.

Unless there are special circumstances, in a case where damages are continuously incurred as a result of continuous commission of tort, such damages are damages arising from new tort on each day, and in applying Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription period shall run separately from the time when each party becomes aware of such damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da30285, Mar. 23, 199). However, this case is an infringement of marital community life due to a wrongful act.