1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 25, 2019 to April 28, 2020, and the following.

1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 1 through 13 as to the establishment of liability for damages, the Plaintiff and C are married on October 4, 2004 and have one minor grandparent, and the Defendant, knowing that C is a woman, can recognize the fact that C had sexual intercourse three times with C from December 2018 to January 2019, while having been aware that it was a woman.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s wrongful act committed against C and C constitutes a tort that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the Plaintiff’s spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered heavy mental pain.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

2. As to the scope of liability for damages, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is determined as KRW 20,000,000, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the instant case, such as health group, the background and period of the Defendant’s delivery of C, the degree of fraudulent act committed by the Defendant and C, the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, and the circumstances after the occurrence of fraudulent act

Therefore, the Defendant, as a result of the Defendant’s tort, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 25, 2019 to April 28, 2020, the date of the instant judgment, which is the date of the instant judgment, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.