1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from October 12, 2016 to November 14, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on September 14, 2007 and have one child.

B. The Defendant knew that C was a female with the workplace of the same company as C, and had sexual intercourse with C several times around 2014.

C. At present, the Plaintiff is in a separate state without divorce with C.

[Ground for Authentication: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-6, entry of Gap evidence 2-1, partial entry of Gap evidence 2-2, and Gap evidence, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above legal doctrine and the facts of recognition, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as committing a sexual intercourse with C, who is the spouse, even though he/she knows that he/she is a spouse.

Such unlawful act by the defendant is clear in light of the empirical rule that it constitutes a tort that infringes on a couple's common life between the plaintiff and C and infringes on the plaintiff's spouse's right as the plaintiff's spouse.

Therefore, the defendant, who is a tort, has a duty to pay mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

(However, in addition to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had sexual intercourse C with C by occupational force, and that there was sexual intercourse with C over a four-year period of time, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit).

B. Regarding the amount of consolation money within the scope of liability for damages, the Plaintiff and C.