1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 4, 2014 to July 17, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on June 5, 2006, and two children between C and C.

B. From June 2013, the Defendant had been working in the same workplace as C, and even C had been employed in the same workplace and had been developed as C with awareness that it had been in a marital relationship with C, and brought about the inhuman relationship with C, such as sexual intercourse.

C. On March 2014, the Plaintiff received a letter from a person who was unaware of his name, stating that “The Defendant and C have a written action of inhumanity relationship” and confirmed the Defendant and C, but the two persons were denied.

C around August 21, 2014, around August 21, 2014, after recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff had established a non-wheeled relationship with the Defendant for at least one year.

E. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff had a shared agreement with C.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including paper numbers), and the result of fact-finding on the case corporation of this court

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Where a person who has a spouse commits a adultery with another person who has a spouse, thereby causing the failure of the matrimonial relationship by removing, divorced from, or divorced from, his/her spouse, a third person who has committed a adultery with another person shall constitute a tort against his/her spouse, and thereby, has a duty to protect the spouse’s mental suffering;

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 delivered on May 13, 2005).

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was aware that C is a spouse, and the defendant's marital relationship was continuously established for a considerable period of time, and the plaintiff's marital relationship has reached the failure due to these acts by the defendant, and it is clear in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff had suffered a considerable mental suffering, so the defendant is obliged to pay the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

C. As to this, the defendant has already failed the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C.