1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 18, 2016 to January 11, 2017.

1. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on June 15, 2012, and have one child between them.

On December 2014, the Defendant first known C through the Kakao Museum, and divided C into Kakao Stockholms. On January 2016, 2016, C was aware that it is Yannam.

In February 2016, from February 2016 to April 201, the defendant provided meals to C with telephone communications to suggest fraudulent acts, as well as entered the home with C.

The plaintiff and C are not divorced.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole video and pleading

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 tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). Meanwhile, “illegal conduct by a spouse” includes a broad concept including a adultery, and includes any unlawful conduct that does not reach the gap between the couple’s duty of mutual assistance, but does not reach the gap between the two (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). Whether it constitutes an unlawful conduct

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the marriage between the Plaintiff and C by doing an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse, and thereby causing emotional distress to the Plaintiff. In so doing, it is sufficient to view that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, or by interfering with the maintenance thereof.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to do so in money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

(b).