1. The Defendant’s KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from October 7, 2014 to June 25, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C have been married on October 2, 1997 and had 2 women under the chain.

B. On May 11, 2003, the former husband of the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant and C, who was well accommodated in the hotel located at the beginning of the Si, as a crime of adultery. On September 17, 2013, the Defendant and C received a decision that they were not suspected of having been suspected of having been informed of the lack of evidence by the father of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office on the ground of the lack of evidence.

C. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was notified by C of the relationship with the Defendant as text messages, and filed an application for confirmation of the intention of divorce upon C’s request.

On August 16, 2014, the defendant visited C with the plaintiff and his/her children in the absence of the plaintiff. On September 17, 2014, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the above residence owned by C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The "illegal act", which is a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, refers to any unlawful act that is not in common (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Meu938, Apr. 9, 1993). As seen earlier, even if there is no direct evidence that the defendant and C met with the defendant, as seen earlier, it shall be deemed that the defendant and C were in a pet relationship with a male and female, and it shall be reasonable to view that the defendant and the defendant were in a pet relationship with the defendant, considering the above facts that the defendant, who was aware of the fact that he was married with the defendant and C, was accommodated in the hotel until the beginning of the year when he was aware of the fact that he was in common with the defendant and carried out with the defendant without being able to wear clothes in the new wall. The above C's act constitutes an unlawful act in which the husband's duty of mutual assistance between the spouses was committed and the defendant was aware that he was a spouse.

Ultimately, the Defendant and C’s wrongful acts are between the Plaintiff and C.