1. Defendant C’s 20,000,000 won to Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from July 10, 2020 to November 24, 2020, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are legally married couple who completed a marriage report on February 16, 2009, and two children are under the chain, and the defendants are married couple.

B. Around June 7, 2019, Plaintiff B became aware of Defendant C at the drinking place with the company’s club fee, and on June 28, 2019, Plaintiff C had a sexual intercourse with Defendant C with and had a sexual intercourse with or had a sexual intercourse with Defendant C by September 18, 2019 after having sexual intercourse with Defendant C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 and 8 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The act that the third party who made a judgment on the claim against the defendant A by the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C infringes on or interferes with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage and the act of infringing on the right as the spouse and causing mental pain to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, Defendant C committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse with Plaintiff B, even though he/she was aware that he/she was a spouse of Plaintiff B, and thereby infringed on or interfered with the Plaintiff’s communal living with Plaintiff B, and thus, is liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by Plaintiff A.

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, including the period of marriage and family relationship of the plaintiffs, the background of this case, the period and degree of fraudulent acts committed by the defendant C and the plaintiff B, and the attitude of the defendant C, it is reasonable to determine consolation money at KRW 20,00,000.

Therefore, Defendant C, upon Plaintiff A’s request, has an objection to the existence and scope of the obligation by Defendant C from July 10, 2020 on the record that the copy of the complaint of this case was from July 10, 2020 to July 24, 2020, which is the date of this decision, as Defendant C’s decision, to the effect that it is reasonable for Defendant C to dispute on the existence and scope of the obligation.