1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from April 5, 2017 to September 27, 2017, and the following.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which falls under the essence of marriage, by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’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 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.

In fact, the plaintiff has completed the marriage report with C on July 29, 1988, and has been maintaining a marital life until now, and has 1 South and North son under the chain.

From April 2014, the Defendant first met with C as a customer at the restaurant operated by the Defendant, but even after being aware of C’s spouse by marriage from around that time, continued to communicate until around the day of the instant lawsuit, and committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 2-1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. 1) According to the above findings of recognition of liability, the defendant's above act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and as such, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff had suffered considerable mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's argument as to the defendant's argument is alleged to the purport that the defendant was unaware of his/her spouse since C introduced himself/herself to be divorced, and thus, he/she did not know that he/she was a spouse. Thus, the defendant's statement in No. 3-2 of evidence No. 3 may be recognized as a divorce only when the defendant and C introduced only in part,

However, in full view of the above facts and the purport of Gap evidence No. 5, the defendant is the defendant.