1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s basic fact begins with C from February 2018 to January 16, 2019; the Defendant was expected to give birth to his/her child; around August 2, 2018, the Defendant first met C at the house of Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si; and on August 14, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff received the instant Messenger as follows from D, the Plaintiff’s seat, did not dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff received the instant Messenger as described below, including the instant Messenger Nos. 1, 2, and 1, can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 (including the instant Messenger).

C EF C

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was in a de facto marital relationship with C, such as pregnancy of C’s child. However, while the Defendant continued to be aware of this, while monitoring the location-based display of C’s Handphones, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress between the Plaintiff and C by means of telephoneing the new wall to the Plaintiff or sending the issue message, and thus, the Defendant should pay 50,000,000 won as consolation money to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following circumstances, prior to the determination of the facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the relationship between C and C is insufficient to be recognized by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as having reached the failure of the relationship between C and C due to the Defendant’s intentional or negligent act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. In other words, considering the following circumstances: (a) although the Defendant did not know that C was dead upon the first arrival of C with C; (b) the Plaintiff was contacted by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was pregnant between C and his/her child, and (c) the Plaintiff was tried not to contact with C, but did not want to keep contact due to continuous access to C’s affirmative demand and continued access, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the relationship between C and C was reached the failure due to the Defendant’s intentional or negligent act; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.