1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as annual 5% from May 31, 2018 to February 13, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and D are legal married couple who completed the marriage report on September 18, 1995, and have children E (ma, 1995) and F (n, 199) between them.

B. The Defendant knew that D had a spouse, committed unlawful acts, such as having the same drinking place and having sexual intercourse, from around 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

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 2011Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, the defendant, even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse, had committed tort against the plaintiff by maintaining inhumanity relations with D for a considerable period of time, by maintaining a sexual intercourse with D with the knowledge that he/she is a spouse. Such tort committed by the defendant, which led to the violation of the marital relationship of the plaintiff or interfered with the maintenance thereof, and thus, the defendant is obliged to take a monetary injury inflicted upon the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant was aware of D's divorce South Korea and caused D's death from D's deception, the defendant did not commit an unlawful act with the knowledge that D's remaining South Korea is the father.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

C. As to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate, the arguments in the instant case are shown, such as health team, the content and degree of fraudulent act committed by the Defendant and D, the period of marriage and family relationship between the Plaintiff and D, and the Defendant’s improper act on the Plaintiff’s marital life.