1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from January 6, 2018 to August 9, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff and C have a couple with the law couple who completed the marriage report on August 17, 2007.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that C was a legally married couple who had reported the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, maintained improper relations, such as exchanging Kakakao Stockholm, etc. from around 2016 to around 2017, and met with the place of residence or Moel.

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, images, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments, as stated in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, and 35

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The occurrence of liability for damages (1) No third party shall interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a married couple’s communal living by interfering with another person’s communal living;

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.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach a common sense but does not faithfully fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of both spouses, includes any unlawful act. Whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of the specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). (2) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act despite being aware that C is a spouse, and the defendant's act constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfere with the maintenance thereof. Thus, the defendant has a duty to pay mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

B. Scope of liability for damages.