2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff completed the marriage report with C on April 26, 1982.

B. Around February 2013, the Defendant became aware of C at the “E” department located in the D status of C operation, and came to know that C is a male with his/her spouse, and the contact with C was made with C and several times.

C. As to the obligations of the Forestry Credit Cooperative with the Defendant’s mother credit cooperative, C received a title of debt on July 22, 2013, but demanded the Defendant or the Defendant (the Defendant’s children, etc.) to bring the title of debt to the Defendant or the Defendant, even though it did not change its name to the Defendant or the Defendant’s side, it was sold by auction.

around May 26, 2014, F, G, and H, which are the plaintiff's relatives, added to the restaurant operated by the defendant, caused the problem of assault with the defendant, under investigation by an investigative agency, and F received a summary order as a crime of assault due to the above case around October 2014.

E. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

F. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff maintained a matrimonial relationship with C, and filed a lawsuit for divorce with the Daejeon Family Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 13 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C has been extinguished due to the failure of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C, such as the plaintiff's physical relationship with C. Thus, the plaintiff is deemed to have suffered mental loss due to the defendant's act of bad faith and the failure of the marital relationship. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money of KRW 50 million to

B. The testimony of the witness C and the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8, which seem to be consistent with the fact that the Defendant and C were in incompetence relations, are the Plaintiff’s husband’s statement or statement. C and the Plaintiff are in line with the Defendant’s money relationship and violence relationship, and the above evidence, which are the Defendant’s statement, are the same.