1. The defendant's KRW 20,000,000 and about this, 5% per annum from March 14, 2020 to September 9, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on January 7, 2008, and have one minor child under the chain.

B. From July 2017, the Defendant: (a) took a galm alcohol with C who had worked in the same workplace; (b) exchanged gifts with C; and (c) exchanged C as “self”; and (d) took teaching tasks.

Around September 2017, the Defendant promised not to communicate with C when the message with C was sent to the husband, and the Defendant came to be asked to the husband, but continued to communicate with C even after it.

Even around December 2017, the defendant was dismissed from the division of the Department C, and was also forced from the husband, but the teaching system has continued.

C. On February 17, 2018, the Plaintiff discovered text messages that the Defendant sent to and received from C around December 2017 at C’s ID, and around the 19th day of the same month, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant communicate with C by finding them as coffees around the Defendant’s workplace.

Around December 2019, the Defendant respondeded that the Defendant’s husband reported the Kakakao Stockholm message and arranged the relationship after the her husband reported it.

However, even after the defendant continued to have met with C. D.

On December 2018, the Plaintiff discovered text messages received and sent by C and the Defendant (C written in NAmermerm, and copied them, and sent text messages to the Defendant). On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted the contact between C and the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband knew of the teaching system between C and the Defendant.

The plaintiff's dynamics demanded the defendant to send letters to the plaintiff and send them letters to the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff and the defendant's husband did not cooperate with each other smoothly, and rather they did not dispute while attacking the other party.

On January 7, 2019, the husband of the defendant's husband came to know about the plaintiff's ‘day' of the political party, and our work seems to be the end that we want to find out.

(i)in the case;