1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from March 11, 2017 to November 8, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 20, 2008, and have one child between them.

The Defendant came to know of C around April 2015, and began to teach C from August 27, 2015.

Since then, around December 2015, the Defendant became aware of the fact that C is the father-Nam, but was living together with C from the beginning of 2016 to January 30, 2017.

(The Plaintiff and C were living far away on the grounds of C’s workplace, etc. during the period of their living). The Plaintiff and C are not divorced.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). Meanwhile, “illegal conduct by a spouse” includes a broad concept including a adultery, and includes any unlawful conduct that does not reach the gap between the couple’s duty of mutual assistance, but does not reach the gap between the two (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). Whether it constitutes an unlawful conduct

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the marriage between the Plaintiff and C by doing an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse, and thereby causing emotional distress to the Plaintiff. In so doing, it is sufficient to view that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, or by interfering with the maintenance thereof.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to do so in money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

B. The above scope of liability for damages is recognized, and No. 2.