1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from November 14, 2017 to August 16, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 13, 2008, the Plaintiff and C have two children under the slurries, who completed the marriage report.

B. Around September 2016, the Defendant, who was an employee of an entertainment establishment, had been found in C for the first time at the entertainment establishment that he had worked for, and had sexual intercourses over several times after he paid the said entertainment expense to the said entertainment establishment. Since then, the Defendant, who was an employee of the entertainment establishment, had a sexual intercourses with C or had a contact with C.

C. Around June 10, 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of the relationship between the Defendant and C, and requested C to liquidate the relationship with the Defendant. On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff called the Defendant to the Defendant and requested C to liquidate the relationship with C by phoneing that C is his/her spouse and requesting C to liquidate the relationship with C.

C. The Defendant and C continued to communicate with the Plaintiff by opening a new mobile phone even after their relationship was discovered, and the Plaintiff was discovered on July 1, 2017.

Defendant and C continued to have their relationship with the Plaintiff again even after their relationship was discovered, while C divorced with the Plaintiff and set up a plan to live together with the Plaintiff. On August 3, 2017, the Plaintiff directly observed C from the Defendant’s home.

E. On July 21, 2017, the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to C. However, on August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant on behalf of C on August 22, 2017 immediately after the filing of the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 16, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances revealed in light of the Defendant’s recognition of liability for damages and the aforementioned evidence, namely, the Defendant, at the latest, knew that he/she was a spouse of C while making a telephone call with the Plaintiff on June 13, 2017. ② Although the Defendant, as an employee of an entertainment business establishment, he/she was first sexual intercourse with C, the relationship with C continues to be more than one year.