1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of order ordering the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff to pay the following amount:

1. Determination on the main claim

A. A third party who made a judgment on the cause of a claim shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of the marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person, causing the failure of a married couple’s communal living

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

The plaintiff was found to have three women after completing the marriage report on March 8, 1996 with C and the fact that the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as having a sexual relationship with C continuously from the second half of 2013 to February 2016 with C, even though he was aware that C had a spouse, may not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of arguments in the statement in subparagraph 1.

The evidence No. 2 (Recording) submitted by the Plaintiff was recorded by the Plaintiff by installing a log recording device in the vehicle C and recording between C and the Defendant on January 22, 2016 and February 3, 2016. Thus, it cannot be used as evidence in a trial or disciplinary procedure pursuant to Article 4 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, which corresponds to a conversation between others not disclosed under Article 14(1) of the same Act, as it falls under a conversation between others that is not disclosed under Article 14(2) of the same Act.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act with C even though he is aware that he is a spouse of C, thereby infringing on the common life of both the plaintiff and C, obstructing their maintenance, and infringing on the plaintiff's spouse's right as the plaintiff's spouse. Since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered mental pain, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money, the health team, the age of the plaintiff and C, the marriage period, the existence of a child under the chain.