1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 1993, the Plaintiff and C were legal married couple who completed the marriage report, and the agreement was married on September 11, 2001.

B. During the period of marriage with the Plaintiff, C was married with the Defendant, and C gave birth to the married couple between the Defendant and the Defendant on D date. At the time, C did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that E was the married couple, and C reported the birth of E as the Plaintiff’s friendly child.

C. On August 30, 2017, C filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of paternity and existence of paternity with the Plaintiff and E, the Seoul Family Court Decision 2017Ddan329576, and asserted that “the Plaintiff and E shall not have paternity.”

The above court entrusted the blood and genes to Seoul National University Hospital, and the result was that "the plaintiff and E shall not be deemed to have a dynamic relationship."

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sought payment of consolation money amounting to KRW 50 million due to tort against the defendant on the ground that the marital relationship with C has disappeared due to the defendant's wrongful act, while the defendant asserts that since the ten years have passed since the date of tort alleged by the plaintiff, there is no obligation to notify the defendant that E is not the plaintiff's relative, the extinctive prescription of claim for damages has expired or that E is not the

B. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff knew of the Plaintiff’s wrongful act at the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of denial or existence of paternity. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the marriage between the Plaintiff and C has reached the failure due to the Defendant’s wrongful act. Moreover, even if the claim for damages is acknowledged, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff was a tort as alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint, around October 1996.