1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from April 14, 2019 to October 30, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 200, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with C and reported the divorce around July 2004, while making a separate marriage. After the judgment, the Plaintiff has maintained de facto marital relationship while living together with a married doctor as a married doctor.

B. Since about 10 years ago, the Defendant started to teach with C as a sexual intercourse with the Chairperson of the foregoing club since 2017, and came to have a sexual relationship, such as having a sexual relationship.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's evidence No. 1 and 10, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the nature of the marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person and causing the failure of the 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 the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). Furthermore, the foregoing legal doctrine also applies to a de facto marital relationship.

B. According to the above facts and evidence, it is recognized that the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as having a sexual intercourse, even though he was aware that he had a spouse in a de facto marital relationship with C, and thus infringed on and interfered with the maintenance of the marital life of the plaintiff and C, and that the plaintiff suffered a considerable mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff. 2) Accordingly, the defendant did not have any awareness or intent that the relationship between the plaintiff and C was destroyed by the de facto marital relationship with C while joining with C, but in light of the above evidence.