1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff C committed unlawful acts, such as the Defendant and sexual intercourse, for the last five years as a person married with the Plaintiff.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered serious mental pain, so the defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won as consolation money to the plaintiff as an illegal person.

B. Although the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the Defendant C, it was true that he had married with the Plaintiff on October 28, 2016, and that C had been married until it was exchanged with the Plaintiff.

2. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment or according to the witness C’s testimony, the Defendant became aware of the fact that: (a) around 2012, the Defendant found a man-employee who was in need of alcohol and worked at the place; and (b) from April 2016, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he had sexual intercoursed several times with C from April 2016.

In light of whether the Defendant was aware of the marital relationship with C, it is difficult to believe that the entry of Gap 3 (C’s written statement) and some testimony of Gap 6 through 10 are not sufficient to recognize it.

C and the defendant are merely sexual intercourses with employees and customers, and there is no evidence to see that they were sexual intercourses with each other, and there is no other's relation with interest in personal information, etc., and it is not very probable that C and the defendant knew of the fact that C were married to the defendant.

On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was aware of C’s marriage at around that time, by putting a photograph of marriage with the Plaintiff on the Kakakao Stockholm screen on November 13, 2015.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that C and the Defendant sent contact with each other via Kakaox, and according to the witness C’s testimony, the Plaintiff was able to freely have access to the mobile phone of her husband, because her husband was aware of the password, and in such a situation, the Defendant and Kakaox were contacted.