A. The plaintiff is an unmarried female who is 192 and the defendant is a married male who is 197 and the selected C is the mother of the defendant.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had sexual intercourse from time to time by around 2011 or around 2012 or around 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 or 2 evidence (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply) or the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion on the cause of the claim;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, while introducing the Plaintiff as a divorce South Korea, was approaching the Plaintiff, and had sexual intercourses with the Plaintiff on the premise of marriage for about seven years, but in fact there was a spouse and a child (the birth in 2013).

The defendant's above deception act constitutes a tort infringing the plaintiff's right to sexual self-determination. The defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for consolation money of 50 million won as compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff. In the case of the appointed party C, the appointed party C actively cooperates with the above deception and processes the tort, so the above deception is jointly liable for compensation with the defendant

B. The main point of the defendant's argument is that the plaintiff first belongs to the other party to sexual traffic, and thereafter, the defendant led to the teaching system for the purpose of resolving both sexual desire, not on the premise of marriage, and the defendant does not have the plaintiff's unmarried status among the teaching systems.

Moreover, in the case of the Selection C, there is no fact that the defendant cooperates in the actions of the original defendant with respect to the teaching system.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. 1) With respect to claims against the Defendant, sexual acts of adults and men are, in principle, belonging to an individual’s free zone. However, only when they are clearly expressed externally and harmful to society, it is sufficient to regulate the law (see Constitutional Court Order 2008HunBa58, Nov. 26, 2009; 2009HunBa191, Nov. 1, 2009). However, all persons are different.