1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 10,00,000 and its amount from December 22, 2015 to November 24, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff, as a legal spouse of C and C, who completed the marriage report, moves to New York, in which C had resided after marriage.

B. On October 24, 2014, the Defendant graduated from the department of international trade at a university, and worked as D’s internship operated by C from October 27, 2014 as J-1 visa to the United States.

C. From December 2014, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with C, which was inappropriate from around December 2014.

On May 18, 2015, the plaintiff reported the two photographs, etc. taken by C and the defendant as the same, and found them to be aware of the relationship between C and the defendant, the plaintiff was at the time of the defendant's cleeping several times before he/she found C as his/her office.

E. The Defendant returned to Korea on May 23, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1 through 9 evidence, each entry of Eul 2 and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on May 18, 2015, agreed that both the Plaintiff’s assault and the Defendant’s relationship with the Defendant C should not be considered as a problem, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit 1) The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was the father-child with C’s spouse, entered into an inappropriate relationship, such as having sexual intercourse with C from around December 2014, and, even after returning to Korea on May 23, 2015, caused mental pain to the Plaintiff, who is the spouse of C, by continuing contact with C, etc., even after returning to Korea on May 23, 2015, is obligated to do so in money. (2) The Defendant’s tort against the Plaintiff is the joint tort committed by C and the Defendant, who is the spouse of the Plaintiff. In light of the Defendant’s relationship between C and the employer who was an employer, the Defendant is also the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability should be limited.

C. On May 18, 2015, the Defendant Plaintiff filed a counterclaim with the Defendant at around 11:00 a.m., to find the Defendant as the Defendant’s office.