1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 30, 2015 to April 27, 2016.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings at each of the images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 10 to 12 (including paper numbers), and Gap evidence No. 4 to 8, and there is no counter-proof.

On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff reported marriage with C.

B. While being aware that C is a spouse, the Defendant: (a) sent and received messages, such as C and C from February 2015 to September 2015; (b) expressed that C would be referred to as “the other party” and wish to report; (c) sent the Defendant’s chest photographs to C; and (d) sent the Defendant’s her chest photographs to C on the new wall.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s community life. A third party’s act of infringing on, or interfering with, a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on the rights of the spouse as a spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, constitutes tort in principle (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, “unlawful act” refers to a broad concept that includes adultery and includes adultery, but does not reach a common sense, any unlawful act that does not comply with the marital duty, and whether an unlawful act is an unlawful act shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on specific cases.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.) B.

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant committed an illegal act continuously for a considerable period with knowledge that C is a spouse, and the defendant's such act infringed upon the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfered with the maintenance thereof.