A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 17, 2010, and have one minor child under their chain.

B. The Defendant served as an employee at the main place located in Cheongju-si, and served as an employee on the main place above around February 2015 and first served as an employee.

C. The Defendant knowingly received money from C from March 2015 to March, 2015, and received money from C to September 28, 2016, including KRW 1 million on March 30, 2015, and purchased goods using C’s credit card during the teaching period.

C, while sending time together with the Plaintiff, calls to the Defendant and calls to each other, and the Defendant and C met mainly in the Cheongju in which the Defendant resides.

The defendant had a chance to pay for C's children and had a chance to pay for C's children. D.

On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the Kakao Stockholm message sent by the Defendant to C, and became aware of the relationship between C and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the defendant maintained a teaching relationship with C, the plaintiff's spouse, and infringed the plaintiff's common life and interfered with the maintenance thereof, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, considering the various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the period and contents of the teaching system between the Defendant and C, the period of marriage and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, the impact of the Defendant’s act on the Plaintiff’s marital life, and the Defendant’s attitude after the occurrence of unlawful act, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is to compensate the Plaintiff as KRW 10

Therefore, the defendant's defense against the plaintiff as consolation money of KRW 10 million and the plaintiff's defense as to the existence and scope of the defendant's duty of performance from March 30, 2015, which is an illegal act.