1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 20, 2019 to August 14, 2019, and thereafter.

1. The following facts are acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements and images of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2-14, Gap evidence 15-1, 2-3, and Gap evidence 16-23, and the purport of the whole pleadings:

The plaintiff married with C on December 14, 2009 and has two children.

B. The Defendant had in the same workplace as C, and from April 2014, after being aware that C had a spouse, maintained an inappropriate relationship, such as having a sexual intercourse from around 2015, with C’s awareness of the existence of the spouse. On February 2019, the Defendant maintained a intermittent relationship, such as accompanying C along with C for overseas travel.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and C maintain marital relations until the date of the closing of the instant argument.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 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 a spouse’s right as a spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby constituting a tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). Accordingly, the third party has a duty to inflict mental suffering inflicted on the spouse.

Examining the above facts in accordance with the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the defendant knowingly committed an unlawful act with the knowledge that C is a spouse, thereby infringing upon or interfering with the marital community life and infringing upon the plaintiff's spouse's right as the spouse of C, thereby suffering from mental suffering. Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay back with money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that there is no causation between the plaintiff and C's failure of marriage with his own tort.

However, in light of the facts admitted by the above evidence, the defendant's assertion is the same.