1. The defendant is 5% per annum from August 7, 2020 to December 8, 2020 to KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the spouse who completed the marriage report with C on September 23, 2013, and has two minor children between C and C.

B. From December 2019 to May 2020, the Defendant conspiredd with C by having been aware of the fact that C is a spouse from around December 2019 to around May 202, with the knowledge of the fact that C is a person with a spouse, having sexual intercoursed with C several times, going to Korea and abroad, and having received text messages containing hate expressions.

[Based on the recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by causing a failure of a married couple's community;

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 en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as knowing that C is a spouse, having a sexual intercourse with C, accompanying a trip, and exchanging an inappropriate message containing a verbal expression. Since the defendant's act is deemed to have infringed upon the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfered with the maintenance thereof, the defendant has a duty to engage in mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s marital relationship with the Plaintiff and C was in de facto broken down before the Defendant reached the agreement, and thus, the Defendant’s aforementioned act did not interfere with either the Plaintiff’s and C’s marital life being infringed or maintained. However, it is recognized that the respective descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 were in fact broken down with the Plaintiff before the Defendant reached the agreement between the Plaintiff and C.