1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 8, 2015 to September 25, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is married with C on June 14, 1982, and is married with C, and has two daughters under the chain.

B. C was aware of the Defendant through the Edridton Association at the end of 1999, and around early October 2008, at the Moel located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, C and the Defendant were also aware of the Defendant.

In addition, it was also found in the Maurel located in the Pyeongtaek village around April 2009, but at the time the plaintiff discovered the defendant and C at the above location.

C. Around November 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) turned the Defendant into a stop that he/she resides in; and (b) the Defendant found the Plaintiff while searching C and staying in the said house until November 30, 2014.

Until now, the plaintiff and C maintain a matrimonial relationship.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A. A person who commits an unlawful act with the other party whose spouse is liable for damages has a duty to compensate for the other party’s mental distress as a result of such an unlawful act, and a person who commits an unlawful act under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is liable for the other party’s emotional distress, and an unlawful act under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act should be understood as a wider concept including any unlawful act that is deemed not faithful to the other party’s duty of mutual assistance, even if it does not reach the common sense as a broad concept

Meanwhile, as shown in the above facts of recognition, the defendant and C together with each other around October 2008 and April 2009, and in light of this, the defendant and C committed a wrongful act in violation of the marital duty of the husband and wife during the above dates and the above period. In addition, around November 2014, in light of the past relationship with the defendant and C, and the period of money in the above place, it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed a wrongful act in the above sense at that time.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.