1. The Defendant’s KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 25, 2018 to November 14, 2018.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 8, and Gap evidence Nos. 4-16, the plaintiff committed an unlawful act, such as sending text messages from time to time to time to time to time, such as sending text messages, which the plaintiff married with Eul on Aug. 2, 1994, after Eul became aware of the defendant working at the D Youngpopool branch in spring around 2004, Eul has come to face, after he frequently became aware of the defendant who had worked at the D Youngpool branch in spring in 2004, while travelling abroad around 2013 as well as travelling abroad, such as Thailand, Hong Kong, etc., and the fact that the defendant was living together with the family members of Canada.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided 201. According to the above facts, the defendant committed an unlawful act to the extent that it cannot be socially acceptable to C and C, thereby endangering the common life of both the plaintiff and C and infringing the plaintiff's spouse's right as his/her spouse, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering, and thus, the defendant is obliged to pay a monetary suffering to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that, if C repeats the end of the marriage relationship with the plaintiff and the marital relationship is arranged, it cannot be denied that there was a little pet relationship as both men and women, such as not having come to the continuous house of C and making the meals, etc. However, even if C had no intention to divorce with the plaintiff around 2012, it did not commit a wrongful act to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, such as making a distance in C, after confirming that C did not intend to divorce with the plaintiff.

However, the defendant.