1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 3, 2018 to June 27, 2019.

Facts of recognition

On January 28, 2005, the Plaintiff was a legal spouse married with C on January 28, 2005, and had 1 South (2014 birth) between them.

The defendant was aware that C had worked in the same workplace from around 2016 to around 2018 with the knowledge that C had a spouse.

[Ground of recognition] A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings, a third party who is liable to compensate for damages shall not interfere with a marital community falling under the essence of marriage by participating in a marital community of another party, thereby causing failure of a marital community.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with knowledge that C is a spouse, and thereby, the Defendant committed an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s communal living or interfering with the maintenance thereof, thereby causing serious mental pain to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C had already failed regardless of the defendant, and the defendant only goes beyond the active action of C. Thus, the defendant is not liable to interfere with the maintenance of the above marital relationship.

However, the statement Nos. 1, 2, and 7 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove it, and the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

B. As to the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant, the health team and the Plaintiff and C.