1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 20, 2019 to July 13, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed a marriage report with C on November 27, 2013.

B. From around 2017, the Defendant knowingly committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse with C, with the knowledge that C was a baby.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, video, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of a marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of a married couple’s communal living by participating in another person’s marital life. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of a marriage by committing an unlawful act with the either side of the married couple, and a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of a marriage by infringing upon or interfere with the married couple’s communal living and his/her right as the spouse

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.

According to the above facts of recognition, C is a spouse and the defendant, even though he knows that he is the spouse, infringed on the plaintiff's right as the spouse by establishing a black-wheeled relationship and impeding the maintenance thereof, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the plaintiff as a tort.

C. Furthermore, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 13 million in consideration of the health class, the period of marital life of the Plaintiff and C, the family relationship, the period in which the relationship with the non-humanity continues, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case.

Therefore, from November 20, 2019, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff against the plaintiff 13 million won and the plaintiff, the defendant's defense as to the existence and scope of the duty of performance is significant.