1. The Defendant’s KRW 5 million and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from March 16, 2016 to September 27, 2016, and the following.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 18 (including the number of each branch number), and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the witness Eul's testimony from December 8, 2015 to December 2015, the defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the plaintiff's husband C is the spouse of the plaintiff's husband between December 8, 2015 and December 2015, it is recognized that the restriction has been made sexually with C, and each of the descriptions or images of Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 11 (including each branch number) is insufficient to reverse it, and no other counter

In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a marital life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s rights as the spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In addition, “illegal act committed by the spouse” under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act refers to any unlawful act committed by the spouse, including the adultery, which does not reach a common sense but does not reach a common sense, but includes any unlawful act not faithful to the husband’s duty of good faith, and the issue of whether it constitutes an unlawful act shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation of each specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). Although the Defendant did not reach a common sense between C and C, it constitutes an unlawful act by the Defendant.

Since it is evident that the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the defendant's wrongful act, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the amount of consolation money is considered to have caused the Defendant to commit an unlawful act due to the following reasons: (a) the Defendant appears to have not reached the level of consolation money between C and C; and (b) the content and period of the Defendant’s wrongful act, such as the Defendant appears to have not reached the level of consolation money between C and C, and the teaching period falls short of twenty days