1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 6, 2016 to June 3, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff and C are bringing up one child of a minor as a husband and wife who has completed the marriage report on April 2, 2012.

C and the defendant are elementary school teachers.

B. On February 9, 2015, the Defendant knew of the marital relationship between C and C from time to time through mobile Messenger, etc., and on March 11, 2015, using the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to enter the house as a business trip on March 11, 2015, and found a house living with C around 10:10 at night with the Plaintiff and until March 3:0 of the following day, and became a sexual relationship with C.

C. The Plaintiff had been subject to C with C after becoming aware of the relationship between C and the Defendant, but has maintained the relationship of marriage.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, whole purport of pleading

2. Determination:

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person's community life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant, even though being aware that C is a spouse, received contacts from time to time before February 9, 2015, and committed fraudulent acts, such as having sexual intercourse with C on March 11, 2015.

The above act is an act that infringes on the plaintiff's common life or interferes with the maintenance thereof, and it is clear that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to care for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

B. The scope of damages is not limited to the defendant and C’s non-wheeled term, but the defendant.