1. The Defendant’s KRW 5 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 12, 2016 to August 29, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on October 24, 1983, and two children are under the chain.

B. Around December 2014, the Defendant sent and came to know of C at the mountain conference, and exchanged with C from time to time, and received the word “nick,” “lick,” “lick,” and “lick,” “lick,” respectively.

C. Around July 29, 2015, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff’s apology.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. In principle, the act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept, including the adultery, that does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, and all unlawful acts that are not faithful to the husband and wife’s duty of mutual assistance may be included therein. Whether it is an unlawful act or not should be assessed in consideration of the degree and circumstances of the specific case.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). In light of the above facts and legal principles, the Defendant committed an unlawful act by instigating C, such as making telephone conversations with knowledge that C is a spouse, sending text messages, etc.

Such unlawful act by the defendant is a tort that infringes on the common life of the couple between the plaintiff and C and infringes on the plaintiff's spouse's right as the plaintiff's spouse, and it is clear in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering.

Therefore, the defendant, who is a tort, has suffered mental pain from the plaintiff in money.