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

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with Nonparty D on March 20, 2003.

B. The Defendant had worked in the same workplace as D and D, and D had retired from employment to another workplace at the present time.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that D had worked in the same workplace as D and had been in close vicinity D with D for about seven years, and had each other “self” or “obstin” despite being aware of D’s work in the same workplace. On Saturdays, the Defendant maintained an unlawful relationship, such as having sexual intercourse or having sexual intercourse at the Defendant’s home.

Since the plaintiff suffers from mental suffering due to such unlawful acts by the defendant and D, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 30,000,100 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff, as evidence related to the illegality of the Defendant and D, has used the recording machine in possession of a flat recorder. The Plaintiff found the recording of conversations between the Defendant and D from the recording machine, and argued that the recording is 1 to 7 of the evidence No. 2, and submitted it as evidence.

However, Article 3(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act provides that a recording or listening to conversations between others that are not open to the public shall not be made public, and Article 14(1) of the same Act provides that any person shall not record a conversation between others or listen to it by using electronic equipment or mechanical means. The Plaintiff does not submit any evidence proving that the recording of the above conversation was lawfully made. The Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to prove that the recording of the above recording was made. Whether the recording of the original recording of the recording is actually carried out or not, even if the recording of the conversation actually exists, it is unclear whether the conversation is a conversation between the Defendant and D, and thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion.