1. The defendant's KRW 20,000,000 and about this, 5% per annum from November 14, 2020 to March 17, 2021 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 8, 1993, the Plaintiff is a spouse under the law who completed the marriage report with C on July 8, 1993, and three married children among the two.

B. From October 2020, the Defendant committed unlawful acts, such as maintaining C’s ties and sexual intercourses several times.

[Evidence: Evidence of Gap 1 to 29 (including branch numbers), the fact that there is no dispute, and the purport before oral argument]

2. Determination

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the nature of the marriage, such as intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person and causing the failure of the married couple’s communal living;

In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby infringing on a spouse’s right, constitutes a tort (Supreme Court Decision 201Meu 2997 Decided November 20, 2014). (b) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, by committing an unlawful act with C, infringed on the Plaintiff’s communal life, thereby obstructing the maintenance thereof, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the spouse, and thereby, inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for tort.

(c)

On the other hand, the consolation money shall be set at KRW 20,000,000, considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, the background leading up to the Defendant’s unlawful act, the content and duration of the unlawful act, and the degree of

(d)

On the other hand, the defendant's act does not constitute a tort since the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C was in the state of failure before the plaintiff's act was committed with C.

The argument is asserted.

However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts alleged by the defendant, the above assertion is rejected.

3. If so, the defendant shall pay consolation money to the plaintiff 20,000.