The defendant's KRW 28,00,000 and its interest to the plaintiff shall be 5% per annum from July 14, 2020 to December 29, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C completed the marriage report on March 30, 1993.

B. C and the Defendant were affiliated with D in other regions, and were in charge of the service support duties organized by the Union D.

Each other becomes aware of.

C. Around July 2019, the Plaintiff heard that the telephone conversations between the Defendant and C was recorded in C’s mobile phone. Around July 2019, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant and C were fluoring the recording of the telephone conversations between the Defendant and C, and that the conversation was divided on the premise that they were talked.

After that, the Plaintiff confirmed C’s Maogle’s mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related mobile phone-related phone-related

E. On June 2020, the Plaintiff came to know that C had visited C in the black box of C vehicle, and called the Defendant.

In the above currency, the defendant denied the plaintiff's question as to whether the defendant met in April 2020, but the fact that the defendant met with C and Moel around May 2020 was rejected.

F. As of the closing date of the instant pleadings, the Plaintiff is living together with his/her parent in the hospital and is under the care of his/her parent, and the division C is separate from C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 23 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse to infringe on or interfere with common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and to inflict mental pain on the spouse by infringing on his/her right as the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle;

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). The fact that the Defendant knew of the fact that he/she had a spouse to C and entered into an illegal relationship with C is as seen earlier, and it is reasonable to deem that such act of the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as C’s spouse, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental damage.