The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 6, 1998, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with Nonparty C.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had sexual intercourse around July 2, 2018, etc., and attended the school from the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as expulsion with C, even though he is aware that C is a spouse, and caused mental harm to the plaintiff by causing the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and C. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 50 million won to the plaintiff as consolation money.

B. The defendant's assertion specifically stated that he/she was divorced to the defendant, and the defendant believed this to be the defendant and limited to the plaintiff, thus, is not liable for damages to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the Defendant, even though having knowledge of the fact that C was in a legal marital relationship with the Plaintiff, was in violation of the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse.

B. Of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, in light of the relationship with C and the Plaintiff, and the process up to the instant teaching system, there is no evidence to prove that C and the Plaintiff were aware of their marriage with C and the Plaintiff.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, the defendant believed that C has divorced in accordance with the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, which is recognized by adding up the purpose of the entire pleadings, it is deemed that C has a limitation on teaching with C.

1) The Defendant, mainly with C, was an officetel located in Incheon B, where C lives together with C. The pictures of the above officetel alone are difficult to predict the fact that C is a person who is married. (2) Although the Defendant applied the Kakakao Stockholm to C to the effect that “I have difficulty in making it difficult.” However, around 2003, it was known that C is pro-Nam around the past year.