1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff and Nonparty C have three children as legal married couple who completed the marriage report.

B. On August 2015, the Defendant continued to meet with C while engaging in commercial sex acts with C through a hosting process, and came to contact with the Defendant on the basis of the relationship between September 21, 2015 and March 1, 2017 during the interview.

C. On October 1, 2015, C leased an officetel No. 404 of the D Building in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, for the Defendant, and approximately five days per week thereafter, the Defendant was living in the said officetel, and the Defendant and the Defendant-friendly Nonparty E were working in his/her office.

The first C introduced himself/herself in an unmarried manner at the time of the defendant's delivery. However, around October 18, 2015, the defendant and C brought an dispute with the non-party E, and C said, "A is a divorce where he/she has a son who has a son in fact" to the defendant.

Since then, on March 15, 2016, the Defendant became aware of the fact that C was accompanied by the Plaintiff during telephone conversations, and C said that C was a person who was divorced by A’s horse.

E. On April 2016, 2016, the Defendant discovered and resisted a photograph and a trace of contact with the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s Handphone, and said C was believed to be “abstined, but is legally divorced,” and the Defendant continued to engage in a relationship with C.

F. On August 2016, the Defendant became aware of the fact that police officers C were living together with the Plaintiff, and that C’s Handphone was viewed as a son’s Handphone.

Therefore, although the defendant was to be the Hague with C, the following day, the defendant was called as soon as possible, and C maintained the internal relationship again by finding the defendant and finding the defendant.

On the other hand, around October 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around October 4, 2016, “the Plaintiff was a person who did not think of divorce at the end of governance.”

Finally, 2.0