1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 31, 2019 to January 30, 2020, and the following.

1. In full view of each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, and 13 (including virtual numbers), the plaintiff is a legally married couple who reported the marriage on August 4, 1992, and there are two children among them. The defendant knew that he/she is a spouse, while he/she was aware that he/she was a spouse, he/she received money from each other or went to April 2019, he/she received money from each other and made a tour with his/her mother, and he/she also made a tour with the name of "nurries", "C" with the name of "nurries", and the facts that he/she filed an application for divorce around April 2019.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of a married couple’s communal living by participating in another person’s marital life. A third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple, thereby infringing on his/her right as a spouse and causing mental distress

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act with C while being aware of the fact that C is a spouse of C, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's spouse's right as the spouse of C by interfering with the maintenance of the marital life of the plaintiff and C, and it is clear in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the defendant's unlawful act, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay compensation for mental suffering suffered by the

C. As to the amount of consolation money, all the arguments of this case are shown in the arguments of this case, such as health group, the period of marital life of the plaintiff and C, the period and degree of fraudulent act of the defendant and C, and the influence of such fraudulent act on the marital life of the