1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 31, 2015 to July 12, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with C on December 4, 1996, and one male female between C and C.

B. The Defendant was C and a middle school dong, and around September 2014, around the end of 2014, the Defendant got a hotel with C at the time of a hotel around December 11, 2014 through a smartphone “bande” display system, which was a gifted, and was going to a tour in Chuncheon.

ground for recognition: A1-4, the whole purport of oral argument; rejected evidence: B

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed an unlawful act with the plaintiff's denial and caused the failure of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C, so the plaintiff should pay consolation money of KRW 30 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that, around June 2015, the Defendant concluded a non-prosecution agreement to the effect that, by explaining that there was no misconduct between C and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would no longer be an issue between C and C, and that the Defendant would no longer be an issue.

The defendant's above assertion is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion only with the statement Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. A third party who made a judgment on the merits shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by causing the failure of a married couple’s community life.

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 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). In full view of the fact-finding and the fact-finding and the fact-finding and the fact-finding, giving and receiving Kakakao Stockholm and text messages over several times for a considerable period of time between the Defendant and C, and the content of the said Kakao Stockholm and text messages (A5), etc., the said messages may also be considered.