1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from June 3, 2015 to August 19, 2015 for the Plaintiff A, and the following:

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A and D are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 28, 1993, and the plaintiff B are the children of plaintiff A and D.

B. The Defendant knew that D had a spouse, and even from March 2012 to May 2014, the Defendant had a regular sexual relationship with D and D several times.

C. On March 4, 2015, the Defendant sent to Plaintiff B, and sent the Kakao Stockholm message with the Defendant from March 2012 to May 2014.

Plaintiff

A maintains a matrimonial relationship with D until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff's non-wheeled relationship with D was known to the plaintiff Eul, resulting in a de facto failure of the relationship between the plaintiff Eul and D, and the relationship between the plaintiff Eul and D was also impossible to recover, thereby causing a big mental damage to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A the consolation money of KRW 30 million and the damages for delay of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff B.

3. Determination

A. The act that the third party to the judgment on the plaintiff A infringes on or interferes with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringes on the spouse's rights, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). In the instant case, the Defendant inflicted mental pain on the Plaintiff by committing an illegal act with the spouse of the Plaintiff A, which constitutes a tort. As such, the Defendant is obligated to bring the Plaintiff to a money, and the Defendant is obliged to bring the Plaintiff to a money, and the consolation money shall be determined as KRW 10,000,000 in consideration of the content and circumstances of the illegal act, and the fact that the Plaintiff maintained a marital relationship with D until now.

In regard to this, the defendant has already failed due to the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff A and D.