1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from April 5, 2016 to September 29, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is C and the legal spouse who completed the marriage report on May 1, 2007.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware that C was a spouse who had completed the marriage report with the Plaintiff, began to teach from October 2013, and came to school with Japan, etc., sent a tour with the same tour or exchange day, or sent a word “self” and “Iskao Stockholm,” and had sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1-6 evidence, fact inquiry results to the head of the Seoul Immigration Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) A married couple's or a couple's communal living obligation, which is a content of the couple's or couple's communal living obligation, shall not commit any unlawful act;

Accordingly, if one side of the married couple commits an unlawful act, it becomes a ground for judicial divorce pursuant to Article 840 of the Civil Code, and one of the married couple is liable for damages caused by a tort against mental suffering that the spouse suffered.

On the other hand, a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which is the essence of the marriage, by intervening in a marital community of another person and causing the failure of the marital community.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act with C while knowing that C has a spouse, thereby infringing on the common life of both the plaintiff and C or hindering their maintenance, and inflicted mental suffering on the plaintiff by infringing on the plaintiff's spouse's right as his spouse. Thus, the plaintiff's mental suffering thereby.