1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 6, 2019 to January 29, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 2, and 3; and (c) evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, and 4; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

On December 11, 2009, the Plaintiff and C have three children as the legal married couple who completed the marriage report.

B. Around March 2018, the Defendant was aware of C and maintained an inappropriate relationship with C, knowing that C was a woman.

C. The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant’s spouse against C seeking consolation money on the ground of the Defendant’s and C’s unlawful act, and became aware of the Defendant’s and C’s unlawful act.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant committed a fraudulent act with C, the plaintiff should pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the claim as compensation for damages caused by the illegal act.

The defendant did not commit a wrongful act with C, and it cannot be deemed that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C was broken down, and even if the failure occurred, there is no proximate causal relationship between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's damage, so the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

B. In principle, a third party who made a judgment on the establishment of a tort, thereby infringing on a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). Accordingly, the third party has a duty to avoid mental suffering suffered by the spouse.

According to the above facts, the defendant has been aware that C was a spouse and maintained an inappropriate relationship with C from March 2018. Thus, the plaintiff's marital life is a marital life.