1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum for the period from December 31, 2019 to November 24, 2020.

Facts of recognition

On June 24, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the marriage report with C on June 24, 200; and (b) the Defendant, despite being aware that C is a spouse, committed an unlawful act, such as interfering with C from December 2019 to June 202, 20, sending hours at the conference with C; and (c) can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of subparagraphs 1 through 13 (including each number where there is a serial number), images, and the entire purport of pleadings.

Judgment

A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of the couple’s communal living by participating in another person’s marital life, and a third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). “Cheating” in this context is a broad concept that includes adulterys and does not reach the common sense, but includes any unlawful act that does not fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of both spouses. Whether it is an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, knowing that he had a spouse, knowingly committed an unlawful act with C with C, thereby infringing upon the community life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, thereby suffering mental pain on the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiff the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

As to this, even if the defendant and C were to have an unlawful relationship, the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and C has already been terminated at that time.