1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 29, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the marriage report on March 5, 2012 with C and C.

B. The Defendant was a person who served in the same workplace as C, and committed a fraudulent act with C from May 2015.

C. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant was pregnant with C’s son while making a telephone call with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant told that C was shot. On March 26, 2016, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a photograph, which C exceeded clothes, to the Plaintiff.

On June 9, 2016, the Defendant found on the new wall that the Plaintiff and C resided in, and forced the Plaintiff to do a defect in, and forced the Plaintiff to do so. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant used C’s telephone call to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 7 and 11, Gap evidence 4, 5,

8. Each voice, Gap evidence 6, and 9, respectively, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings;

2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was aware of the fact that the plaintiff and C were legally married, and therefore, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental suffering due to the violation of the marital life of the plaintiff and C, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money for mental damage to the plaintiff.

Although the defendant alleged that he was the first relationship due to C's forced enforcement, the defendant did not submit evidence to prove this. Even if the first relationship was commenced due to C's strong pressure as alleged by the defendant, even if that relationship continued thereafter, he sent photographs containing C's off from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was son.