1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from April 6, 2019 to January 21, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on Oct. 25, 2018, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that C has a close-friendly relationship, such as a metral relationship or a sexual intercourse with C with his knowledge that C is a married woman in 2019, while having been in contact with his or her father or son and being in contact with C. Thus, even though the Defendant was aware that C is his or her spouse, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s right as his or her spouse by committing such unlawful act and obstructing his or her maintenance. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a tortfeasor.

The defendant asserts to the purport that since prior to the marriage between the plaintiff and C, the defendant and the plaintiff have already been in a patriotic relationship with the plaintiff, as well as the plaintiff had never been in a sexual relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant, and C, and that the plaintiff impliedly allowed C's sexual humiliation or sexual behavior to freely allow C, regardless of whether the plaintiff is married or not. Thus, the defendant's act is not unlawful, and therefore, the plaintiff's tort against the plaintiff is not established.

The plaintiff and the defendant had a sexual intercourse with the plaintiff before marriage with the plaintiff and C, while there was no dispute between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant. However, even if the plaintiff and C before marriage with the plaintiff, the relationship with the defendant, sexual sexual intercourse, and sexual behavior before marriage were above, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff still maintained the same relationship as before marriage after marriage, or freely accepted sexual sexual behavior such as before marriage and sexual behavior such as the transfer of marriage, and the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of this case in itself, the plaintiff still maintained the same relationship as before marriage after marriage, or freely admitted sexual behavior such as the transfer of marriage.