1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from July 9, 2016 to January 24, 2017.

1. Judgment on the main lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, without notifying the Plaintiff that he/she had a legal spouse, induced the Plaintiff by promising that he/she would divorce with his/her spouse and marry with the Plaintiff around July 23, 2015, and caused KRW 5,149,590 on behalf of the Plaintiff to incur property damage equivalent to the above amount by having the Plaintiff spend KRW 5,149,590 on behalf of the Defendant as indicated in the attached disbursement statement in the attached Form, and incurred emotional distress by unilaterally cutting off the teaching system with the Plaintiff around May 2016. In addition, the Defendant is obligated to end up with money, since it unilaterally cut off the teaching system with the Plaintiff and caused emotional distress to the Plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the solatium amounting to KRW 45,149,590 (=property damage amounting to KRW 5,149,590) and damages for delay.

B. The statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff by the above method, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The defendant unilaterally cut off the teaching system with the plaintiff according to the plaintiff's assertion cannot be deemed to have inflicted mental pain on the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit is without merit without further review.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. According to the statements and videos set forth in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the Plaintiff threatened the Defendant by sending the words “if it comes within five minutes of working hours as her mother’s marity, it shall not be deemed that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to see the horses from the Defendant around July 23, 2015 to May 7, 2016, where the Plaintiff maintained a resistant relationship with the Defendant, and around May 2016, when she was in a resistant relationship with the Defendant, she listened to her horses, and her cellular phone of the Plaintiff to the Defendant on May 7, 2016.” In governance, the Plaintiff’s intimidationd the Defendant by sending the words “if it comes within five minutes of working hours as her mother’s marity, it shall not be deemed to be a tax base,” and thereafter on May 21, 2016.