1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 2, 2018 to April 30, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on December 20, 2016.

B. The Defendant knew of the fact that C was a woman, and committed an unlawful act, such as having contacted C several times from April 2018, and having committed a adultery around July 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including each number), images, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C or interfering with its maintenance, thereby suffering from mental pain to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to do so in money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Considering the various circumstances indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the content, degree, and period of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, which can be known from the above recognition scope of liability for damages, and the impact of the said unlawful act on the Plaintiff’s marital relationship, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be compensated by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 1

(A) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with C only once on July 2, 2018, and did not have internal relations. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant and C, which can be known in the images stored in the vehicle black box, had sexual intercourse with C once with C even before marriage, and the Defendant had contact with C from April 2018, it is difficult to accept the said assertion). Accordingly, the Defendant was 15,000,000 consolation money and its corresponding amount.