1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 18, 2017 to June 5, 2018, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on February 7, 2002.

B. At around 2016, C and the Defendant came to know at a meeting of the owners of child care centers related to child care centers, and C were to talk about the marital issues with the Plaintiff and to have the Defendant advise.

C. Around August 2017, the Defendant and C were accommodated together with the container located at the inner seat of the Defendant and C.

Around October 2017, C was aware of the Plaintiff that C had the Defendant before his house, and the Plaintiff sent the word “C” to the Defendant.

E. The Defendant introduced C also to the defective children who were to be divorced with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s children called C as hys, and followed C’s talking about family travel with the container membership right.

F. C received physical treatment at a hospital around December 28, 2017. Around December 28, 2017, the hospital introduced the Defendant to his/her wife and to his/her father as his/her father.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 10 evidence, 11 evidence, 13 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where a third party has committed an unlawful act with a party of the married couple, it constitutes a tort by infringing the rights of the husband or wife who is the other party to the case where the party has intentionally or negligently committed an unlawful act. Thus, it shall be deemed that the other party has a duty to suffer mental

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu79 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.). Moreover, “illegal act by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, which is a cause for judicial divorce, includes a wider concept that includes the adultery, and does not reach the common sense, but includes any unlawful act that does not faithfully fulfill the marital duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the above recognized facts, the entire argument is examined.