1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant suffered mental suffering from the plaintiff's spouse C and unlawful acts, and thus, the plaintiff should compensate the plaintiff for consolation money of KRW 30 million.

B. The defendant's assertion is merely between the defendant and C as a member of the same club as C, and there is no omission between C and C.

2. Determination

A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015). Meanwhile, an unlawful act includes any and all unlawful acts that are not faithful to the husband and wife’s duty of good faith even if it does not reach the common sense (Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 Decided May 24, 198).

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 14, and 20 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the plaintiff and C were legally married couples, but they were parked in front of the defendant's home, and C was witness to grow a garden together with the defendant, C and the defendant received money from a million won to a million won over several times, and the plaintiff argued that C did not have any improper relationship with C, and that the plaintiff did not have any other relation with C before and after the plaintiff's previous claim, and that C was frighted to the purport that C was not met.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant and C continue to maintain the relationship with members of the same club and committed an unlawful act.

C. Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered severe mental pain due to the Defendant’s wrongful act, the Defendant would have raised money to the Plaintiff.