1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 3, 2016 to February 7, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on April 19, 2012, and have two children under the chain.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of a spouse of C, has received and sent Kakao Stockholm messages from November 2015, including “I wish to report” and “I good,” or maintained a relationship with Kakao Stockholm messages on several occasions a day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap's statements and images as well as evidence of Gap's 1 to 6, 11 to 13 (including each number), the inquiry and reply to the Director of the KT Receipt Support Center of this Court, the witness D's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Husband and wife who is responsible for the birth of loss shall live together and be responsible for supporting each other;

(Article 826 of the Civil Act). Husband and wife, as a community in which mental, physical, or economic combination is achieved, shall have the duty to cooperate and protect each other in a comprehensive manner so that marriage as a marital community is maintained, and shall have the right to such a duty.

As such, as the content of the marital or marital life maintenance obligation, the married couple bears the sexual duty that should not commit any unlawful act.

If one side of the married couple commits an unlawful act, the other side of the married couple shall be liable for damages caused by a tort against the mental suffering which the spouse has sustained.

On the other hand, a third party shall not interfere with a married couple's community life, which is the essence of the marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by causing a failure of a couple's community life.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing is deemed to have existed.