1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on April 28, 2009.

B. From July 2014 to August 2014, the Defendant knew that C had a spouse, and had a sexual intercourse with C several times.

C. The marriage between the Plaintiff and C continues to exist until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married life falling under the nature of marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing a failure of the marital life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for emotional distress caused by such unlawful act, as seen earlier, since (a) even though he/she was aware that he/she was a spouse, he/she committed several unlawful acts between C and C, and (b) from July 2014 to August 2014, thereby infringing on the common life of the Plaintiff and C, interfering with the maintenance thereof, infringing on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as his/her spouse, thereby suffering emotional distress.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay consolation money since the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C does not reach a failure. However, as long as the spouse suffered mental distress through an illegal act with the spouse, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money even if the marital relationship does not reach a failure. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

(b) liability for damages.