1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from March 7, 2015 to June 12, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on July 29, 1989 and has three children under the chain.

B. On May 2014, the Defendant became aware of C around 2014, and thereafter, C, despite being aware of the existence of his/her spouse, was developed as one of his/her relationship with a man, and became infinite relationship until November 2014, such as sexual intercourses in Mour, etc.

C. On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff shared a divorce with C on April 20, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Where a person who has a spouse commits a adultery with another person who has a spouse, thereby causing the failure of the matrimonial relationship by removing, divorced from, or divorced from, his/her spouse, a third person who has committed a adultery with another person shall constitute a tort against his/her spouse, and thereby, has a duty to protect the spouse’s mental suffering;

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental suffering of the Plaintiff’s spouse, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C has already been substantially distressed around April 2014, and the misconduct between the Defendant and C asserted by the Plaintiff is after the failure of marital life between the Plaintiff and C to the extent that it is impossible to recover. Therefore, the Defendant’s act is not constituted tort on the grounds that it cannot be said that the act did not infringe the Plaintiff’s marital life or interfere with the maintenance thereof.