1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants, who suffered liability for damages, committed unlawful acts with D, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s communal life or interfering with the maintenance of the Plaintiff’s marital life and suffering from mental distress, are liable for tort against the Plaintiff.

3. The amount of consolation money to be compensated by the Defendants shall be set at KRW 10,000,000, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Plaintiff and D’s marital life, the background leading up to the instant litigation, and the influence of the Defendants’ fraudulent act on marital life.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from May 15, 2014 (Defendant B) and August 8, 2014 (Defendant C), which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff, until May 15, 2014 (the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case) until August 19, 2014 (Defendant C), which is reasonable for the Defendants to dispute the existence and scope of the obligations, until May 19, 2016, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the part against the defendants ordering payment in excess of the above recognition amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, the part against the defendants which ordered payment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. The remaining appeal by the defendants shall be dismissed as without merit. It is so decided