1. The defendant's KRW 12,00,000 and about this, 5% per annum from September 15, 2020 to March 9, 2021 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 13, 1995, the Plaintiff is the husband and wife under the law who reported the marriage with the non-party C (son and D) and who left one another under the sleep.

B. The Defendant, with the knowledge of the fact that C was a person working in the same workplace as C, maintained an inappropriate relationship, such as (i) having been working in the workplace as C, (ii) having been working in the workplace, (iii) having been in the middle of May 2020, and (iv) having been in the middle of May 2020, (iii) having been traveling in west, (iv) having been traveling in the middle of C and in the middle of June 2020, and (v) having been traveling in the middle of C and B, (v) having been driving in the middle of C,

(c)

From July 17, 2020, the Plaintiff, from around July 17, 2020 to around August 27, 2020, sought suspension from the Defendant. However, until August 27, 2020, the Defendant continued to meet the individual relationship with C, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 1, 2020 and arranged the relationship.

【Unfounded grounds for recognition】 Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a case where a third party who suffered a liability for damages commits an unlawful act with a spouse, thereby infringing on, or impeding the maintenance of, community life of the couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, the act constitutes tort against the other party’s spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu 2997, Nov. 20, 201). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship with the spouse C, which is the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on, or hindering the Plaintiff’s community life or infringing on his/her spouse’s right as his/her spouse. Accordingly, in light of the empirical rule, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental distress.

B. The scope of liability for damages is that the health team, the background and duration of the Defendant’s delivery of C, and the Defendant and C’s wrongful act with respect to the amount of consolation money.