The defendant's KRW 15,00,000 for the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from January 10, 2020 to November 12, 2020 for the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 10, 1998, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with Nonparty C (hereinafter “foreign person”) and one of his married children was born between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty.

B. On September 2018, the Nonparty became aware of the Defendant, who was introduced by Nonparty D, an insurance solicitor, following the introduction of the Defendant.

C. On December 6 through 8, 2018, Nonparty E, the Nonparty, the Defendant, and the Defendant-friendly job-friendly Nonparty E, revoked the Japanese trip, and thereafter, they took part in the Japanese trip from July 17 to 20, 2019.

The non-party has been travelling in Jeju-do on August 14, 2019 to June 16, 2019, and the defendant has also been traveling in Jeju-do for the same period.

E. On August 30, 2019, the Nonparty told that he had a sexual intercourse with the Defendant while making a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff.

F. At around 06:00 on November 13, 2019, the Nonparty taken pictures of the Defendant’s bridge and sexual picture stored in the Defendant’s cell phone located in the F hotel parking lot as his/her cell phone.

【Ground of recognition】 without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, and 3, the Seoul Immigration Authority of the Republic of Korea, the fact inquiry results with respect to Gap, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant was suffering from mental suffering by committing an unlawful act with the Nonparty, and the Defendant came to know of the Nonparty through the aforementioned D, which was currently the school system at the time, and that the Nonparty was only a person having ordinary friendship in the process of introducing a female-child organ to the Nonparty, and did not have any improper relationship with the Nonparty.

B. (1) Whether a third party is liable for damages, thereby infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage, and infringing on the right as a spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse.