1. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff A KRW 25,00,000, KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts from December 31, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are legally married couple who reported marriage on May 4, 2005, and there are two minors under the chain.

The defendant is between the plaintiff B and the work partner.

B. Plaintiff B and the Defendant had sexual intercourse several times from June 2018 to July 2019 at the company, telecom, automobile, etc.

The defendant taken the face of a sex relation with the plaintiff B and kept the video files.

C. The Defendant’s legal spouse D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff B by asserting that the Defendant’s unlawful act was committed with the Defendant, and the Chuncheon District Court rendered a judgment on February 12, 2020 that “the Plaintiff B shall pay D KRW 25,000,000 and delay damages therefrom,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim does not interfere with a married community life equivalent to the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a married couple’s community life by causing a failure of a married couple’s community life by participating in a married couple’s community life. A third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with a married couple, and infringing on the spouse’s right as a spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, as seen earlier, the Defendant committed an unlawful act with Plaintiff B, knowing that Plaintiff B was a spouse, thereby infringing on Plaintiff A’s community life and interfering with its maintenance, and thus, the Defendant is obvious in light of empirical rule that Plaintiff A suffered emotional distress due to the Defendant’s tort.