1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant were related to the Plaintiff from August 2015 to June 2016. Around June 2016, the Plaintiff knew that the Defendant was pregnant with the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to abortion, and the Defendant considered the Hague.

The defendant was married with the plaintiff, and entered into a sex relationship with the plaintiff, and committed unlawful acts such as returning to another woman from around December 2015, which had been living in the family.

In addition, the defendant forced the plaintiff to abortion.

The defendant's act constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

Since the plaintiff suffered serious mental impulse due to the defendant's illegal act, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 50 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's delivery of another woman among the Dos, which the defendant had a relation with the plaintiff, constitutes a tort.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions and videos of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1 through 3, 5, 6, and 1 of evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, from August 2015 to June 13, 2016, diagnosed that the Plaintiff was pregnant of the Defendant’s child on June 13, 2016, may recognize the fact that the Defendant was dead with another female or personal rights while returning to the Plaintiff.

As long as a male and female were not in a marital relationship, legal marriage, de facto marriage, or matrimonial engagement relationship, even if they were married or dead, they cannot be deemed to bear the duty of mutual assistance. Thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute a tort under the Civil Act on the ground that a male or female was married to another male or female from among the Dos in which he left by a male or female, and that he did not have the duty of mutual assistance.

According to the above facts, the defendant could have known that he was deceased by another woman while having been in a personal relationship with the plaintiff. However, there is no room for moral criticism against the defendant's above acts.

In addition, each evidence mentioned above is examined.