1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 24, 2016 to June 14, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are the legal couple who married on January 7, 1990 and has two children under the chain.

Plaintiff

Husband and wife have been studying together as a Spain, and C was appointed as a professor in March 2010 and became a smooth couple's life in cooperation with each other.

B. On August 2014, the Defendant and C met with Seoul Elementary School Group on April 29, 2015, the Seoul Southern District and the National Power Center, etc., and met with each other at least once a month, including: (a) the Defendant traveled to the Masan and the Mansan in the order of the Jeonnam by May 2016; (b) the Mansan and the Mansan in the order of the Mansan; (c) the Mansan and the Mansan-do, the Mansan-Namnam Cancer, the Mansan and the Mansan-si

C. The Defendant and C sent C’s Spanish business trip for four days from July 12, 2015 to June 16, 2016, with an opportunity to conduct a Spanish business, at Maura, a Spanish resort. On February 24, 2016 and March 9, 2016, the Defendant and C sent the accommodation facility several times in addition to establishing a sex relationship.

On March 16, 2016, the Defendant issued clothes to C when she puts off the Defendant’s clothes to C, and the Plaintiff doubtful the relationship between the Defendant and C in the horses and attitudes, and eventually became aware of the facts.

The defendant and C arranged the relationship in May 2016.

On June 2016, the defendant and C have also planned Banbscoo tour.

E. The Plaintiff knew the appearance of the Defendant and C, and caused depression and depression due to acute stress.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the existence and scope of damage claim and the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as having sexual intercourse with C, even though he/she was aware that C is a spouse, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering in a situation where the plaintiff was unable to maintain his/her normal marital relationship with C due to such an act by the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

The consolation money that the defendant is liable for.