1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 11, 2019 to February 5, 2020, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff and C completed the marriage report and had one child (2015 birth) between them.

B. Around August 2018, the Defendant and C, who became aware of the workplace relationship, formed a very closely-friendly relationship, and the Defendant was also a person who had a spouse as C.

C. On November 7, 2018, the Defendant and C sent time to the Mourel on the same day, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was dismissed.

On November 11, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff via C a message stating that “a crime is sent, and no contact with C is possible.” On December 201, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a message stating that “The Plaintiff will contact with C or meet with C.”

E. On December 12, 2018, C and the Defendant sent time together at the Moel. On February 2019, accompanied by each of the children of the first patrolmen, the Defendant took up two-day travel for one night and continued to meet with her child.

F. On March 2019, C went back at the end of the dispute with the Plaintiff and returned home at the end of July 2019, and the Defendant called the Plaintiff on August 2, 2019 to the effect that “I cannot complete the relationship with C and C” by phoneing the Plaintiff around August 2, 2019.

G. On August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or image of Gap evidence 1 through 11 (including each number in case of a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

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 a tort in principle.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). The Defendant knowingly knows that he/she has a spouse C and denies.