1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from January 25, 2018 to June 19, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 24, 2010, and their children are six years of age and three years of age.

B. The Defendant, as a company bonus of C from February 2016, had been able to perform duties with C from around February 2016, and became a personal-friendly relationship with C from January 2017.

C. From January 2017, the Defendant: (a) had been aware that C was a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with the Plaintiff; (b) had home home and home home as C; (c) had a meal after leaving the country, or Kakakao Stockholm dialogued from time to time; and (d) maintained improper relations, such as met at the motherel.

On July 15, 2017, the Plaintiff said that C knew of the external fact to C, and C promised to reflect the fact and arrange the relationship with the Defendant, but the Defendant and C still exchanged the future contact and continued to have an inappropriate relationship until December 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes tort in principle.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach a common sense but does not faithfully fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of both spouses, includes any unlawful act. Whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of the specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). In light of the above facts of recognition, the defendant was aware that C is a spouse, but it was inappropriate for C to do so.