1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 13, 2018 to May 23, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report on April 28, 1994.

B. C served as the father and professor of the D Hospital. Around March 2014, the Defendant, while having been aware that C had been working as a part of the D Hospital’s mountain father and had him/her work as a part of the D Hospital’s mountain father, he/she maintained a sexual intercourse until March 31, 2017, by knowing that C was the father and male, by not later than November 2017.

C. On November 24, 2017, C decided to discontinue the relationship with the Defendant, and obtained the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected it, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that he/she and C had been in in a badial relationship for several months, and even thereafter, C continued to find C until December 25, 2017, sent a text message to the effect that he/she will continue to find C and love it as a mobile phone.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) A third party’s liability for damages does not interfere with a married 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 married couple’s communal living by participating in another person’s marital life. A third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse and thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, in principle, constitutes a tort (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as entering into a sexual relationship with C even though it is well aware that C is a marital relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as a spouse by interfering with the maintenance thereof, and as such, it is obvious that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental distress due to the Defendant’s unlawful act.