1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 30, 2016 to November 10, 2016, and the following.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff and C have a child under the chain of law as a married couple who completed the marriage report on November 3, 1992.

The defendant came to know C in the university city and came to know C in the conference around 2002.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 2.5 million from C on six occasions from April 25, 2007 to June 7, 2010.

The defendant sent text messages to C several times from December 201 to April 2011 as shown in the attached Form.

Defendant and C entered hotel several times from September 23, 2015 to March 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8 statements (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers), the whole purport of arguments, and the act of a third party, which infringes on or interferes with marital life falling under the essence of marriage and infringes on the rights of the spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). The Defendant, by committing an unlawful act with C and his spouse, infringed upon the Plaintiff’s community life or interfered with the maintenance thereof, and infringed on the Plaintiff’s right.

As a result, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, we examine the amount of consolation money.

Considering all circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the circumstance in which the defendant committed a fraudulent act with C, the period and contents of the fraudulent act, the marriage period of the plaintiff and C, and the degree of mental suffering that the plaintiff suffered by the fraudulent act, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 15 million.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is justified since April 30, 2016, which is the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff seeks.