1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 7, 2015 to December 15, 2015, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2003, the Plaintiff and C began to live together in an apartment located in D at the time of having been married on the premise of marriage.

B. The Defendant became aware of C around October 2014, and even after being aware that the Plaintiff and C were living together, up to 745 times in total between October 22, 2014 and February 5, 2015 (i.e., November 51, 2014 and December 175, December 175, 2015, and had a sexual relationship with C.

C. C around December 6, 2014, after assaulting the Plaintiff, C went home. D.

On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant and C for damages (de facto marriage reversal) (Seoul Family Court 2015ddan1624), and on March 6, 2015, a copy of the complaint was served on the Defendant and C.

E. On March 12, 2015, while the instant lawsuit was pending, C agreed with the Plaintiff on March 12, 2015, that “Plaintiff shall withdraw the lawsuit against C, and C shall pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 6, 8, and 14, witness C's testimony, fact-finding results on ELS Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the plaintiff and C were in a de facto marital relationship from around 2003, and their de facto marital relationship was reversed at the latest around March 6, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case. C shall be deemed to have violated the duty of de facto marriage due to a large number of telephone conversations with the defendant and a sexual relationship with the defendant, and the defendant shall also be deemed to have reversed the de facto marital relationship by violating the duty of de facto marriage. While he is well aware that the plaintiff and C are in a de facto marital relationship, he actively participated in the destruction of the de facto marital relationship with C and provided the cause of de facto marriage.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the improper destruction of a de facto marriage as an illegal person participating in the illegal destruction of a de facto marriage.

(b) Compensation for damage;