1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 6, 2015 to November 24, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported their marriage on May 15, 2007, and have 1 South Korea under the chain.

B. From December 2014, the Defendant started the teaching system, such as having C with a sexual intercourse in a golf practice range.

C. Around March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that C is teaching with the Defendant, and subsequently made a claim to the Defendant via a mobile phone text message on May 17, 2015, but even after that, the Defendant continued to make a continuous call with C, and entered the telecom on August 24, 2015, and continued the relationship between January 28, 2016 to February 1, 2016 as well as overseas travel.

The Plaintiff and C filed an application for confirmation of intention of divorce with Suwon District Court 2015No. 3192, but did not appear on the date of confirmation of intention of divorce, and the said application was withdrawn on March 3, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, Gap's statements and images, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, 11, 13, 17 through 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, and 28 (including the branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court's EL Plus and Suwon's Immigration Office's results of the fact inquiry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse to infringe on or interfere with common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and to inflict mental pain on the spouse by infringing on his/her right as the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C, or interfering with its maintenance, thereby causing mental pain to the Plaintiff. This constitutes tort against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff due to the above illegal act.

With respect to the amount of consolation money, the foregoing facts and each of the above facts are recognized.