1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 1, 2015 to February 25, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. From December 21, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to marry around March 2015 and lived together from May 27, 2015, and came to enter into a marriage with C.

B. Around December 2014, the Defendant had been congested with C.

C. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff and C promised to marry, and the Defendant sent C a Kakakao choooth text message on May 6, 2015, including “Fished lafed lafed laf laf laf laf laf laf laf laf laf laf,” and “F laf laf laf laf laf,” and C from June 10, 2015, to the Defendant.

6. up to 15.15 copies, approximately 150 copies;

6. From 22. to 22. A day before marriage ceremony.

6. up to 26.26 copies,

7.13.13.0

7. By December 22, 200, approximately 340 mobile phone text messages were sent and received.

From July 29, 2015 to July 31, 2015, the defendant has been living in the above C and Japan.

E. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 5, and 7 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the case where the parties to a judgment on the cause of claim agree to marry between themselves and make a marriage by promising them to marry or living together, which is a substantial content thereof, the parties are obligated not to act as an obstacle to social norms in performing their obligations in good faith to the other parties and at the same time the other parties are obliged not to act as the obstacle to social norms. The parties are obliged to abide by mutual assistance between men and women and to compensate for the material or mental damage which the other party has received. The acts of the third party processed shall constitute joint tort and shall not be exempted from liability for damages to the third party.

As seen earlier, even though the health care unit and C promised to marry with the Plaintiff, they still committed a fraudulent act with the Defendant even though they commenced their marriage after they were married.