1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from October 26, 2015 to September 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C, had two children between C and C.

B. From February 2015, the Defendant offered a teaching system with C from February 2015.

Around April 2015, the defendant became aware of the fact that C was married and her child was born.

C. From April 1, 2015, until February 12, 2016, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant’s phone called to C to make a voice call or sending text messages to C is 490 times.

On May 9, 2015, the mother of C and the mother of E were found to be the defendant's house, and the defendant was able to take a bath and assault the defendant.

E. C repeated gambling around May 2015, but went back on June 1, 2015.

In the Kakakao Stockholm photographs used by C, the Defendant’s photograph and the phrase “packer, the fronter, and the fronter,” together with the Defendant’s photograph.

F. C sent a house to an officetel located in Ansan as above.

On August 15, 2015, the defendant had been together with C in C’s officetels.

On August 24, 2015, the defendant's vehicle was parked in the parking lot of the officetel.

C had a photograph affixed to the above officetel with the defendant.

C transferred 190,618 won to the defendant's account on October 3, 2015.

[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's claim of this case is based on the premise that the defendant committed a fraudulent act with C, and thus, it is judged as to whether there was a fraudulent act between the defendant and C.

Illegal act includes any act that is not faithful to the duty of good faith as a spouse, and whether it is an illegal act as a broad concept rather than a so-called cross-section shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation according to each specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992). C as seen earlier.