1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 18, 2018 to January 10, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 3, 2017, the Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who filed a marriage report on May 4, 2018 while entering a marriage and maintaining a de facto marital relationship.

B. Around December 2017, the Defendant: (a) provided Da scamy through the fishing scamation; (b) on January 2018, around July 17, 2018, upon being aware of the fact that C was a female, maintained an inappropriate relationship, such as sexual intercourse between C and July 17, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person's community life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(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, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu7, May 24, 198; 92Meu68, Nov. 10, 1992). Furthermore, the foregoing legal doctrine also applies to a de facto marital relationship.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an illegal act with the knowledge that C is a spouse, and since the defendant's act constitutes an infringement on the plaintiff's de facto marriage and marital relationship or interfere with the maintenance thereof, the defendant is therefore.