1. The Plaintiff’s individual rehabilitation claims against the Defendant in the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2019 Congress 1070758 are 25,000.

Basic Facts

On June 16, 1988, the plaintiff and the non-party D have two children as their husband and wife under law who married.

In around 209, the defendant became aware of D as he worked for the hospital operated by D, and even after being aware of D's spouse, the defendant maintained D's non-wheeled relationship with D from around 2010 to March 2019, with knowledge of D's spouse.

On November 1, 2019, when the lawsuit in this case is pending, the defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2019 Congress 1070758, and the above court rendered a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures with respect to the defendant on November 11, 2019, and the plaintiff raised an objection thereto, and then changed the lawsuit in this case to the lawsuit for confirmation of individual rehabilitation claims.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 41, and a third party who is liable to compensate for damages to determine the purport of the whole pleadings, shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage by participating in a married couple's community life by causing a failure of the married couple's community life. The third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as entering into a sexual relationship with D with the knowledge that he/she was a spouse by marriage of D, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s right as spouse D by interfering with the Plaintiff’s communal life or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the Defendant’s tort, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff in money or consolation money.

On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant knows that D has a spouse.