1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed the marriage report with C on September 18, 2015.

B. Around September 22, 2018, the Defendant first met C at a club located in Busan and became aware of the fact that C had a sexual intercourse, and thereafter met C and had a sexual intercourse. Around that time, the Defendant became aware of the fact that C had a legal spouse.

After that, the defendant had a more gender relationship with C on October 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). In the instant case, the Defendant, while knowing that he/she had a legal spouse, committed an unlawful act with C with the knowledge of the fact that he/she had a legal spouse, thereby infringing a couple’s community life and infringing the Plaintiff’s rights as his/her spouse, thereby suffering from mental suffering, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a tort.

B. In full view of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the following: (a) the scope of compensation for damages; (b) the marriage period and family relationship of the Plaintiff and C; (c) the content, degree and duration of the misconduct committed by the Defendant and C; and (d) the impact of the said misconduct on the Plaintiff and C’s family members, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW

C. Accordingly, the Defendant’s lawsuit is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation from February 14, 2019, following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff after the date of tort against the Plaintiff.