1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 28, 2017 to July 19, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 10, 2008, and have one male female under the chain.

B. From June 2015 to June 2016, the Defendant: (a) worked in the Sung Gung, Co., Ltd. from June 2015 to June 2016; and (b) became aware of the illegal relationship with C.

C retired from the above company on September 2016, and thereafter lived with the defendant and gave birth to the defendant around July 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 to 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was well known to C that the Defendant had a spouse, and, due to such unlawful act, the Plaintiff and C’s marriage led to the failure of the marriage.

This constitutes a tort under the Civil Act, and the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion was aware of C as a divorce woman.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant knew of the existence of a spouse to C, and at least could have easily known the existence of a spouse. However, it is recognized that the failure of the marriage between C and C was caused

As above, the defendant's improper act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, who is the spouse C, and the defendant is obligated to pay mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

B. The assertion that the scope of compensation for damages and C’s marital life period and child relationship, and the misconduct between the Defendant and C had an effect on the failure of the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, among the Defendant’s assertion that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C was in distress at the time of the expulsion with C.

However, according to the above evidence or the whole purport of the pleadings, it is recognized that the relationship between the plaintiff and C was caused only by the relationship between the plaintiff and C, but also the failure is recognized.