A. On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with Nonparty C on September 1, 2010, and had a child of 2010 between C and C.

B. Around October 201, the Defendant first learned while drinking alcohol at a Han D University’s neighboring D University. Around that time, contact was made between the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant became a personal relationship.

C initially referred to the Defendant as a divorce son, but it became known that he was a natural father before he became a month of his rights and duties.

(See Class A evidence 8). (c)

On November 201, the Plaintiff confirmed that C’s mobile phone Kakaox messages continue to exist with the Defendant, and was promised to inform C and his parents of the fact that C and their parents would not leave again by resisting C.

However, around November 2012, the Plaintiff confirmed that the act of misconduct with C and the Defendant continues through pictures, text messages, and Kakakao Stockholm messages stored in C’s mobile phone.

On November 18, 2012, the Plaintiff sent contact to the Defendant via C and received a promise from the Defendant to no longer communicate with C in the vicinity of the Seoul River basin. On December 2012, 2012, both the Defendant and C agreed not to talk with C, but the Defendant and C continued to talk with C even thereafter.

On July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff considered that the relationship with C and the Defendant was not terminated, and confirmed upon receipt of C’s mobile phone phone phone calls from C to July 3, 2013, and as a result, C and the Defendant came to know that C and the Defendant had exchanged several telephone calls and text messages on several occasions a day during the above period.

around July 2013, the Defendant and C acknowledged that the mother of C and the parent of C had sexual intercourse with them in front of the Plaintiff’s mother at the Plaintiff’s house, followed the Plaintiff’s apology, and decided not to talk again, and the two persons thereafter met again.