1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 15, 2015 to October 21, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 6, 1995, the plaintiff (1969) and C (1964) have three children under the chain of a married couple who was a legal couple who completed the marriage report on December 6, 1995.

B. The Defendant became aware of C around October, 2014, and began to have an internal relationship with C despite being aware of the existence of his/her spouse.

C was living together with the plaintiff and his children in December 2014.

C. On March 2015, C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking a divorce, alleging that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C was broken down due to a cause attributable to the Plaintiff.

(G) On August 18, 2015, Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of C on August 18, 2015 on the ground that C’s grounds for divorce asserted by C is merely an expression of decentralization in the process of establishing a relationship with another woman and demanding the Plaintiff to divorce.

After that, the above judgment became final and conclusive because C did not appeal.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”) D.

On January 2015, the Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff, which knew of the Cheating with C, stating that “I will always put a person who has to live with governance marbling at all times, which is against this opportunity, and the husband’s husband is late,” and that “I will know about how much I would have done, if I would know about how I would have done, I would like to go against this opportunity, I would like to send it to the husband.”

E. Around January 2015, the Defendant, along with C, cannot arrange with C to children who end up to meet or hedging the minor children between the Plaintiff and C. It also told C to the effect that C is love.

F. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff went to the Defendant’s office. At the time, the Defendant’s office found C’s clothes.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, and in the event of Gap evidence 1 to 13, each number shall be included;