1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from February 16, 2016 to November 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 1994, the Plaintiff was a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on June 28, 1994, with two children between C and C.

B. At the end of June 2015, C performed drinking at the car page of “D” located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul at the end of June, 2015, and thereafter, C, on July 4, 2015, the term “D” means that the Defendant spawn spawn spawn swn at the same school and the Plaintiff swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn at the same swn swn swn swn swn swn,

C. After that, the Plaintiff became aware of the Republic of Korea between C and the Defendant, and completed a divorce report with C on December 29, 2015 at the Suwon District Court of Suwon-si on December 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's testimony, Gap's evidence 1, 2, Gap's evidence 6-1, Gap's evidence 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment couple's duty to live together and maintain a common life of both spouses. As the content of the duty, the husband and wife bears the sexual duty that should not engage in any unlawful act, and the third party shall not interfere with a married couple's common life falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with the other party's common life by interfering with the other party's common life. The third party's act of infringing on or interfering with the marital common life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse and causing mental distress to the spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). Meanwhile, the spouse's unlawful act constitutes tort in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201).