1. The Defendant jointly with C (D) and jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 18,00,00,000 and the Defendant’s payment thereof from October 30, 2018 to May 15, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 5, 2011, the Plaintiff and C completed the marriage report, and thereafter, three minor children (2011, 2013, 2014, 2014) were employed.

B. The Defendant committed unlawful acts, such as adultery, while maintaining a friendly relationship between C and C who worked at the same subject, from May 2018.

C. On September 20, 2018, the relationship between the Defendant and C was discovered to the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Defendant, which met the Plaintiff, recognized the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act with C, and C prepared a letter to the effect that “A acknowledges the Defendant’s fraudulent act and not communicate the Defendant again.”

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 8, 2018, and around that time, the relationship between the Defendant and C continued.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). Also, tort liability borne by either spouse and a third party is jointly and severally liable as a joint tort.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015). The fact that the Defendant knowingly committed an illegal act with C with C despite being aware of his/her spouse’s existence is as seen earlier. Such an act by the Defendant is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff infringed upon the rights of the Plaintiff’s spouse as C, and it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered a serious mental pain.

Therefore, the defendant, as the joint tortfeasor, is the plaintiff.