1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 2005, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with C on November 17, 2005, and has two children among them.

B. In December 2013, the Defendant met C at an elementary school alumni meeting, and even with knowledge that C had a wife and child, sent telephone conversations, etc. from around that time to April 2014, and maintained an inappropriate relationship, such as talking several times.

C. Among them, C requested the Plaintiff to divorce, but the Plaintiff rejected it, and C prepared a letter to the effect that C would not mention the Plaintiff’s divorce.

C continues to serve as a teaching system with the defendant even after that, and on April 2, 2014, it continued to have sexual intercourse with the defendant in the telecom.

C On April 4, 2014, it refers to the Plaintiff’s educational proposal with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was refused to divorce.

C On April 23, 2014, a divorce suit was filed against the Plaintiff by the Changwon District Court 2014ddan20398, and the trial is still pending.

[Ground for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14, purport of the whole pleadings

2. A person who has a spouse of the judgment or a person who has committed an unlawful act shall constitute a tort against his/her spouse, and shall have a duty to inflict mental pain inflicted upon his/her spouse;

In addition, fraudulent acts stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code include all acts which are considered not to be faithful to the duty of mutual assistance of the married couple, even though they did not reach the common sense as well as the common sense.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's act of maintaining improper relations with C while being aware of the fact that he was the father-child of his spouse at the time of the day, constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, who is a spouse under the law of C, and since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering due to the above tort, the defendant.