1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 12,00,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from January 27, 2015 to July 22, 2015.

1. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of branch offices; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the basic facts, the plaintiff is a DNA spouse who reported marriage with D on November 28, 1994 and has three children between D and D.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as to the statements and videos set forth in the evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 10 of Defendant B’s damage compensation liability, Defendant B may recognize the fact that Defendant B, despite being aware of the existence of his spouse, had sexual intercourse with D between 2013 and 2014, had a sexual relationship with D and continued to exchange telephone conversations and text messages, etc. (see, e.g., Defendant B, her husband, had access to Defendant B on a planned basis, and continued to threaten Defendant B to assault Defendant B on or around June 2013 and July 201 of the same year, so that Defendant B may not refuse to meet with Defendant B, and Defendant B cannot refuse to comply with the request made by the aforementioned Defendant B to the effect that it was bullying, and that Defendant B did not have any unlawful relation with Defendant B as Defendant D. However, it is difficult to accept.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant C was aware of D around September 2014, and was aware of D around September 21, 2014, and on September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff provided a cause for the failure of a matrimonial relationship between the Plaintiff and D by entering into an unlawful relationship with Defendant D. Furthermore, according to the aforementioned evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental distress. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay consolation money due to a tort to the Plaintiff. (2) In full view of the purport of the argument as a whole, Defendant C’s written evidence Nos. 4, 6, 1, 13, and 14, Defendant C became aware of D’s entirety, and Defendant C became aware of D around September 2014.