1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 27, 2018 to November 7, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 30, 2004, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with C on April 30, 2004, and has a child of 2 South and North Korea.

B. On early 2017, the Defendant came to know of C with a sense of view, and took a school with a sense of view, and thereafter, C was aware that he had a spouse, and the Defendant was able to teach C by entering into a sexual relationship with one another.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry and video, and whole purport of pleading in Gap's No. 1 and 9 (including virtual numbers)

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married life falling under the nature of marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing a failure of the marital life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). According to the aforementioned facts and evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as having a sexual intercourse, even though he/she was aware of the fact that he/she had a spouse C, thereby infringing on and impeding the marital life of the Plaintiff and C, and thereby, it is determined that the Plaintiff had suffered considerable mental

In light of the fact that the plaintiff is living together without filing a divorce or a claim for consolation money against C, the plaintiff can be deemed to have spent C after the death of the plaintiff, and the marital relationship has been broken down due to the defendant's wrongful act.

Although it is alleged to the effect that the right of marital life or marital life is not infringed, as long as the defendant committed an unlawful act with C, it has already been the marital life between the plaintiff and C.