A. The plaintiff and C are legal couple who completed the marriage report on January 4, 2003, and have D (E) and F (G) children who are minor children.

B. From March 200 to February 2, 2008, the Defendant served as a teacher of an I High School located in the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, from March 2008 to March 2014. The Plaintiff was employed as an assistant principal of the above high school from March 2000 to March 3, 201, and C was employed as a teacher of the above high school from March 2001 to March 2001, respectively. Meanwhile, C was treated as a member dismissal on February 19, 2014.

C. At around 2006, the Defendant and C continued to maintain the illegal relationship, including sexual intercourse, from September 2006 to October 201, when serving as the head of the research department and the head of the school.

On February 2, 2011, the Plaintiff came to know of the above improper act by the J, the husband of the Defendant, who was the husband of the Defendant, through a telephone with the Defendant C, which is suspected of the inhumanity relationship with the Defendant.

E. The Plaintiff is living separately with C from December 2013, but has not filed a divorce lawsuit or agreed divorce against C.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 18, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. On March 1, 201, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the JJ, the Defendant, on March 1, 201, agreed with the Defendant, a spouse of the Defendant, to not impose any civil or criminal liability among the Defendant and C on the condition that the Defendant and C would no longer have any special relationship, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff’s non-litigation agreement is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and J have reached an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to waive the claim of consolation money against the Defendant and not to institute any civil action, on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 23-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.