1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 26, 2018 to January 11, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with C on July 6, 2010, and generated son and son between D and D.

B. The defendant from April 2018 to the same year

5. By December 26, 200, C had been aware that it was married to the Plaintiff and continuously exchanged with C and had a dynamic relationship with C.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-5-4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above fact of finding the liability for damages, the defendant intentionally committed an unlawful act.

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above tort with monetary suffering.

B. Examining the above facts and the purport of the entire arguments in light of the above facts and the above evidence, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the Defendant is 15,000,000 won, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the period of marriage, family relationship, degree of mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, gender, occupation, social status, property, and educational degree; and (c) motive and circumstances leading the Defendant to the above act; (d) the number of times, period, and degree of time

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff consolation money of KRW 15,00,000 and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Civil Act from May 26, 2018 to January 11, 2019, which is the date of the rendering of the judgment, deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of the obligation in this case, and KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims are without merit.