1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 5, 2016 to November 29, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal couple who reported marriage with C on December 17, 2012.

The defendant, even though he is aware that he is a spouse, who is living in the same workplace as a person with a neighboring spouse, had a sexual intercourse with C from around 2015, and entered into an inappropriate relationship such as receiving a surgery for pregnancy.

B. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking consolation money against the Defendant by becoming aware of the relationship between the Defendant and C, and withdrawn the lawsuit around December 2015.

However, at the time of the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the Plaintiff, the Defendant acted as if the Plaintiff were to adjust the relationship with C, but actually, it has established an inappropriate relationship with C.

The relationship between the defendant and C continued until April 2016.

C. Around December 2015, the Defendant’s husband D came to know of the unsound relationship between the Defendant and C, and filed a claim for damages against C by this court’s 2016Kadan21482, and requested C to pay a director and a resignation at the workplace.

C, contrary to this, the C filed a complaint against D as a crime of coercion, and D filed a complaint against C as a crime of intrusion upon residence by entering into a sexual intercourse with B at its home.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 2, Eul’s whole purport of pleading

2. A third party in a board shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person's community life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is the spouse of C.