1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 18, 2017 to November 16, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and all the arguments.

The plaintiff married with C on April 25, 1998 and has two children between C.

B. The Plaintiff operates a coffee shop with the trade name “E” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and the Defendant operates a real estate brokerage office with the trade name “G” with F along with F on the same floor.

C. From April 2015 to the beginning of 2016, the Defendant: (a) knew that C was the husband of the Plaintiff; (b) committed an unlawful act by having C in relation to C; (c) during that period, C received high-priced clothes, bags, etc.

Around March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of a fraudulent act between the Defendant and C, and the same year.

3. Around 21.21. Around the same day, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to leave the said D shop, but the Defendant continues to operate the business in the said G without complying therewith.

E. Upon filing the instant lawsuit on June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff’s husband H also filed a lawsuit against the Defendant’s husband H as Seoul Central District Court 2017 Ghana6895186.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 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 a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). However, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, knowing that C has a spouse, has maintained a fraudulent act including sexual intercourse with C from April 2015 to early 2016, so the defendant's above improper act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered a serious mental suffering.