So, they finally revealed the villain's background. We can summarise it to:
1. Irresponsible parents 2. Bullying 3. Discrimination 4. Environment 5. Lack of moral guidance
So, she became the villain she is today. She has a deep deep deep bitterness against the world. Instead of killing herself, she chose to create what is impossible. Unfortunately, imperfect beings can never create nor achieve true perfectionβthat's the fundamental truth of all realities.
Combine that with her deep bitterness and insatiable thirst to control people, she will continue to tarnish the technologies and kill hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
It truly justifies AH1's conclusion: kill her, period.
Holy sh*t! That's the craziest, most twisted, writing I've ever seen!
I've read a thousand books. I've watched a thousand movies. I've seen more than half a thousand TV series and anime. I've read almost half a thousand comics (manga, webtoon, etc.).
yeah munchausen by proxy is old hat in medical dramas (I've seen crime shows and first responder shows do it as…
Yep. It's really not a good idea to watch two shows with similar themes. π The more similar they are, the easier to mix them. π Not to mention, similar styles, similar face shape, and even shared actors. π€―
1) this is modern times and she is older, I can understand clueless teenager but an older woman in modern days…
Oh, so them agreeing not to have a child is "not in the drama"? Sorry, I thought it was, I guess you're right.
> this is modern times and she is older, I can understand clueless teenager but an older woman in modern days should be aware of different birth control modalities
Is it also in the drama how "an older woman in modern days should be aware of different birth control modalites"?
I don't remember watching any of that so far, not even implied or hinted. Again, I'm sorry. I might have missed it.
I also think the same. How come she is pregnant with her second husband ΰ₯€ He did not want a child in the first…
1. Are people not allowed to change their minds?
2. She possibly saw something that made her decide, and he agreed, it's best for them to have no child. In her new situation and husband, those reasons don't exist.
3. If they had a pre-nuptial agreement, which is legally binding, then it grants her every right to abort the embryo with or without his knowledge and/or consent because the pre-nuptial agreement was agreed by both parties and thus it automatically grants his approval.
It probably had something like, "Mr. ___ and Ms. ___ both agreed to not have any children, natural or adopted. If the event of a pregnancy, both parties agreed Ms. ___ is granted the option of abortion at any time during the first four months of pregnancy, otherwise, the child will be put in an adoption agency of their choosing."
We don't know how much protection Korean law bestows upon a child still in the mother's womb. You can practically put anything in a pre-nuptial agreement as long as it is not against any laws at the time it was drafted and signed by both parties. And if both signed, it is legally binding and automatically grants agreement where needed, clarified or not. That's how contracts work and a pre-nuptial agreement is a contract made by, agreed upon, and signed by soon-to-be-wed couples that they must follow or can use if needed.
Since this is a law drama, assume they had a pre-nuptial agreement. He is, after all, supposedly the best litigation lawyer. He should be aware not to enter into marriage without a pre-nuptial agreement.
The ex-wife is not nice: she didn't want a baby with him, but now she is pregnant with his friend. I assume she…
1.Are people not allowed to change their minds?
2. She probably thought it's better for them to not have a child. But her new situation and new husband, she didn't see reasons not to have a child. Is it evil?
3. Having a child or not has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with love. Not even the Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Norse, think that way. The ancients themselves understood this.
That line of thinking is very offensive. Try to say that to your friends and relatives who chose not to have a child, not even adopt, and see how your relationship with them change.
So the ex Wife got together with a friend of theirs, out of all the men in the world, it was him.. It seems the…
> out of all the men in the world, it was him
You do know that when people are depressed, emotionally in pain, hurt, they can easily fall for the person who they're opening up with?
Here in the Philippines we even call that lucky/unlucky guy or girl, "rebound". Some lucky ones get married later but usually not.
Yes, it can take 2 years or more.
In fact, I'll probably go on and say, it took them 2 years because their mutual friend made sure to keep their relationship platonic. He doesn't want to be a rebound and make it awkward for them later.
It took her that long to actually sort herself and move on. When the bestie finally saw she's ready, 2 years already passed.
Does it happen it real life? A lot. It just is not a money-grabbing story. Not everyone is an *ss. Besides, being a rebound? The rebound is the one who'll get hurt the most. For the other person, it usually simply feels like turning a switch off or waking from a dream. I know because despite knowing this, I risked everything, in the end I lost everything.
> Bro code got broken
Nothing was broken other than someone's ego and controlling nature.
This childish "bro code" is just a macho name for "bullying everyone to get in line".
ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR. Not some childish "bro code".
Absolutely no one can dictate who people can love and marry. You can say your reasons but at the end of the day, they have all the rights to love and marry who they want.
Whatever is your personal opinion or view in "your best friend or relative or sibling marrying your ex-wife or ex-husband", that is your own personal opinion and view, you can not force other people to subscribe to it. Otherwise, you're bullying and controlling.
And in a law drama like this? Saying, "she's my ex and you're my best friend" is him forgetting the law.
Oh. And "bro code" is not under morality either. Morality is different from ethical. If you're going to insist on "bro code", it falls under ethical. Even then it is highly questionable. The United Nations Convention on Human Rights values individuality and freedom. This "bro code" goes against that. It's dicatorship. It's bullying. It's nothing but control disguised as some unwritten macho rule.
TBF even if it was after 50 years, some would still feel betrayed if their close friend got together with their…
LOL. That "bro code" is just another way of saying "I rule over you".
I've been in one.such situation.
A member of our tight-knit organization was whining about how he was the first to woo a girl, and I should've waited until it was my turn.
Was he correct with his "bro code"? No.
All is fair in love and war.
In our case, if you need other guys to fall in line and wait for you to stop before they can woo the same girl, it means you are weak and have nothing to offer. If you think you're a better person, then there's nothing to be afraid of even if there are a million guys going after her.
I can't remember if I confrontend him about it because the rumours where going around about how I broke some childish "bro code". But it didn't affect me. She chose me too. π€£
All is fair in love and war.
No, there is nothing fair about "bro code". It's a form of bullying labelled to make it sound like "macho". And if you break it, it gives the supposed "victim" justification to take their revenge however they want because "bro code".
P.s. I'm reacting to "bro code", I'm not saying you believe in it. ππ½
1) this is modern times and she is older, I can understand clueless teenager but an older woman in modern days…
You and the OP are both forgetting that this is a law drama. There is such a thing as a pre-nuptial agreement where soon-to-be-wed couples lay down conditions on their marriage and make it legally binding.
He's a lawyer so it shouldn't be a surprise if they do have one and it was stipulated that abortion is an option and the wife can decide about it anytime with or without the husband's knowledge and/or consent. She probably was the one who included that, and he agreed to it.
Even if we assume there was no pre-nuptial agreement, that it was only a verbal agreement, it will open a can of worms. Things that won't help them in their respective careers. For example, "He's a lawyer and he didn't put it in ink? Is he a really good lawyer?" And, "What kind of wife forces her husband to agree they won't have a child?"
Remember, this is in Korea, not the EU or the US.
The pre-nuptial agreement is the game changer here. It's a law drama so it's safe to assume they had one. So, 2025 or not, "her body, her decision" or not, if the pre-nuptial agreement exists, they both agreed to it, including the abortion, automatically.
the ex-wife i very much dislike. i can understand not wanting to have a child, but secretly aborting it is horrible.…
If they have a pre-nuptial agreement, which is legally binding, logically speaking she can abort anytime if she wants to, the pre-nuptial covers that.
In that scene where the 1ML simply went to the bathroom was him sorting his feelings and thoughts. His feelings are angry, hate, betrayed. But his thoughts are "pre-nuptial agreement, she has every right to do so, I'm a lawyer I should know that".
It will all come down to if they did have a pre-nuptial agreement or not. Simply agreeing without putting it in ink can be easily questioned in court these days. 2hile yes, verbal agreements are as good as putting things in ink, it is harder to prove and thus can be made to appear it never happened.
If this was the case, then the 1ML probably didn't sue her and opted for or agreed for a divorce. He knew he won't be able to sue her because they only had a verbal agreement, and no doubt, an agreement that was made at the spur of the moment just so she'll agree to get married. Which in turn will just open another can of worms if discussed in court.
So, him filing for a divorce or agreeing to it is him giving his feelings justice, "she didn't discuss it with me".
But if they do have a pre-nuptial agreement, he can't get angry over her decision for abortion (assuming she did, it could've been a miscarriage). Again, a pre-nuptial is legally binding. Since he's a lawyer, he probably also agreed to stipulate abortion and leaving the decision to the wife.
The wife divorcing her husband and marrying his best friend β what a terrible situation. π Whatβs the real…
Though I'm suspecting her first pregnancy was his. Then she aborted it, or intentional miscarriage, because they had a pre-nuptial agreement.
Then after the divorce, they only got married after 2 years so they can use the "we just ended up that way" excuse. And this time she's open for a kid because, well, her first pregnancy was his.
I think she aborted or intentionally miscarriaged because she knows he's a very good lawyer. They need to cover up they cheated so she can get an equal share for their divorce.
Of course, this is assuming she really did cheat with the best friend. Because if you think about, it could all have been an innocent incident. A real miscarriage or something. And if they did have a pre-nuptial agreement, logically speaking she has the right to abort anytime since the pre-nuptial covers that legally already.
And 2 years later, she and her ex-husband's bestie naturally fell for each other. This time, she's open to having a child too. She may not be evil at all, just the circumstances.
Another positive about this show, they're tackling new cases instead of the usual/common ones. Or, they add a new layer or dynamics to a common one.
For example, the kid and mother. That's new in law dramas, even in Western shows.
It's one the cases aren't boring. So far all are fresh for the audiences. We get to learn new things too.
Edit: removed "Then they added new dynamics to a common case her father/uncle went through." It's from Law in the City. π€£π€£π€£ Thanks to Ivy for pointing it out.
1 
1. Irresponsible parents
2. Bullying
3. Discrimination
4. Environment
5. Lack of moral guidance
So, she became the villain she is today. She has a deep deep deep bitterness against the world. Instead of killing herself, she chose to create what is impossible. Unfortunately, imperfect beings can never create nor achieve true perfectionβthat's the fundamental truth of all realities.
Combine that with her deep bitterness and insatiable thirst to control people, she will continue to tarnish the technologies and kill hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
It truly justifies AH1's conclusion: kill her, period.
Holy sh*t! That's the craziest, most twisted, writing I've ever seen!
I've read a thousand books. I've watched a thousand movies. I've seen more than half a thousand TV series and anime. I've read almost half a thousand comics (manga, webtoon, etc.).
I thought I've seen it all until The Defects E07!
> this is modern times and she is older, I can understand clueless teenager but an older woman in modern days should be aware of different birth control modalities
Is it also in the drama how "an older woman in modern days should be aware of different birth control modalites"?
I don't remember watching any of that so far, not even implied or hinted. Again, I'm sorry. I might have missed it.
Can you be so polite as to point it out for me?
Great eye! Thank you for pointing it out. ππ½
2. She possibly saw something that made her decide, and he agreed, it's best for them to have no child. In her new situation and husband, those reasons don't exist.
3. If they had a pre-nuptial agreement, which is legally binding, then it grants her every right to abort the embryo with or without his knowledge and/or consent because the pre-nuptial agreement was agreed by both parties and thus it automatically grants his approval.
It probably had something like, "Mr. ___ and Ms. ___ both agreed to not have any children, natural or adopted. If the event of a pregnancy, both parties agreed Ms. ___ is granted the option of abortion at any time during the first four months of pregnancy, otherwise, the child will be put in an adoption agency of their choosing."
We don't know how much protection Korean law bestows upon a child still in the mother's womb. You can practically put anything in a pre-nuptial agreement as long as it is not against any laws at the time it was drafted and signed by both parties. And if both signed, it is legally binding and automatically grants agreement where needed, clarified or not. That's how contracts work and a pre-nuptial agreement is a contract made by, agreed upon, and signed by soon-to-be-wed couples that they must follow or can use if needed.
Since this is a law drama, assume they had a pre-nuptial agreement. He is, after all, supposedly the best litigation lawyer. He should be aware not to enter into marriage without a pre-nuptial agreement.
2. She probably thought it's better for them to not have a child. But her new situation and new husband, she didn't see reasons not to have a child. Is it evil?
3. Having a child or not has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with love. Not even the Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Norse, think that way. The ancients themselves understood this.
That line of thinking is very offensive. Try to say that to your friends and relatives who chose not to have a child, not even adopt, and see how your relationship with them change.
Says who?
ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.
You do know that when people are depressed, emotionally in pain, hurt, they can easily fall for the person who they're opening up with?
Here in the Philippines we even call that lucky/unlucky guy or girl, "rebound". Some lucky ones get married later but usually not.
Yes, it can take 2 years or more.
In fact, I'll probably go on and say, it took them 2 years because their mutual friend made sure to keep their relationship platonic. He doesn't want to be a rebound and make it awkward for them later.
It took her that long to actually sort herself and move on. When the bestie finally saw she's ready, 2 years already passed.
Does it happen it real life? A lot. It just is not a money-grabbing story. Not everyone is an *ss. Besides, being a rebound? The rebound is the one who'll get hurt the most. For the other person, it usually simply feels like turning a switch off or waking from a dream. I know because despite knowing this, I risked everything, in the end I lost everything.
> Bro code got broken
Nothing was broken other than someone's ego and controlling nature.
This childish "bro code" is just a macho name for "bullying everyone to get in line".
ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR. Not some childish "bro code".
Absolutely no one can dictate who people can love and marry. You can say your reasons but at the end of the day, they have all the rights to love and marry who they want.
Whatever is your personal opinion or view in "your best friend or relative or sibling marrying your ex-wife or ex-husband", that is your own personal opinion and view, you can not force other people to subscribe to it. Otherwise, you're bullying and controlling.
And in a law drama like this? Saying, "she's my ex and you're my best friend" is him forgetting the law.
Oh. And "bro code" is not under morality either. Morality is different from ethical. If you're going to insist on "bro code", it falls under ethical. Even then it is highly questionable. The United Nations Convention on Human Rights values individuality and freedom. This "bro code" goes against that. It's dicatorship. It's bullying. It's nothing but control disguised as some unwritten macho rule.
ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.
I've been in one.such situation.
A member of our tight-knit organization was whining about how he was the first to woo a girl, and I should've waited until it was my turn.
Was he correct with his "bro code"? No.
All is fair in love and war.
In our case, if you need other guys to fall in line and wait for you to stop before they can woo the same girl, it means you are weak and have nothing to offer. If you think you're a better person, then there's nothing to be afraid of even if there are a million guys going after her.
I can't remember if I confrontend him about it because the rumours where going around about how I broke some childish "bro code". But it didn't affect me. She chose me too. π€£
All is fair in love and war.
No, there is nothing fair about "bro code". It's a form of bullying labelled to make it sound like "macho". And if you break it, it gives the supposed "victim" justification to take their revenge however they want because "bro code".
P.s. I'm reacting to "bro code", I'm not saying you believe in it. ππ½
He's a lawyer so it shouldn't be a surprise if they do have one and it was stipulated that abortion is an option and the wife can decide about it anytime with or without the husband's knowledge and/or consent. She probably was the one who included that, and he agreed to it.
Even if we assume there was no pre-nuptial agreement, that it was only a verbal agreement, it will open a can of worms. Things that won't help them in their respective careers. For example, "He's a lawyer and he didn't put it in ink? Is he a really good lawyer?" And, "What kind of wife forces her husband to agree they won't have a child?"
Remember, this is in Korea, not the EU or the US.
The pre-nuptial agreement is the game changer here. It's a law drama so it's safe to assume they had one. So, 2025 or not, "her body, her decision" or not, if the pre-nuptial agreement exists, they both agreed to it, including the abortion, automatically.
In that scene where the 1ML simply went to the bathroom was him sorting his feelings and thoughts. His feelings are angry, hate, betrayed. But his thoughts are "pre-nuptial agreement, she has every right to do so, I'm a lawyer I should know that".
It will all come down to if they did have a pre-nuptial agreement or not. Simply agreeing without putting it in ink can be easily questioned in court these days. 2hile yes, verbal agreements are as good as putting things in ink, it is harder to prove and thus can be made to appear it never happened.
If this was the case, then the 1ML probably didn't sue her and opted for or agreed for a divorce. He knew he won't be able to sue her because they only had a verbal agreement, and no doubt, an agreement that was made at the spur of the moment just so she'll agree to get married. Which in turn will just open another can of worms if discussed in court.
So, him filing for a divorce or agreeing to it is him giving his feelings justice, "she didn't discuss it with me".
But if they do have a pre-nuptial agreement, he can't get angry over her decision for abortion (assuming she did, it could've been a miscarriage). Again, a pre-nuptial is legally binding. Since he's a lawyer, he probably also agreed to stipulate abortion and leaving the decision to the wife.
Then after the divorce, they only got married after 2 years so they can use the "we just ended up that way" excuse. And this time she's open for a kid because, well, her first pregnancy was his.
I think she aborted or intentionally miscarriaged because she knows he's a very good lawyer. They need to cover up they cheated so she can get an equal share for their divorce.
Of course, this is assuming she really did cheat with the best friend. Because if you think about, it could all have been an innocent incident. A real miscarriage or something. And if they did have a pre-nuptial agreement, logically speaking she has the right to abort anytime since the pre-nuptial covers that legally already.
And 2 years later, she and her ex-husband's bestie naturally fell for each other. This time, she's open to having a child too. She may not be evil at all, just the circumstances.
For example, the kid and mother. That's new in law dramas, even in Western shows.
It's one the cases aren't boring. So far all are fresh for the audiences. We get to learn new things too.
Edit: removed "Then they added new dynamics to a common case her father/uncle went through." It's from Law in the City. π€£π€£π€£ Thanks to Ivy for pointing it out.
I guess that's why he became like that. Detached. Very logical. Business mode. The hurt and pain.
I thought it went to court, and no one questioned the lawyer who scared the employer. π
Thank you! ππ½