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 November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). Meanwhile, “illegal conduct by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a wider concept including adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful conduct that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of good faith, and whether it is an unlawful conduct or not should

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). 2. According to the respective descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 through 8 (including paper numbers) and the entire purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff is a married couple who reported a marriage with C on February 5, 1986, and the Defendant, from around July 28, 2017, may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and C were in a marital relationship with C while being aware that the Plaintiff had a marital relationship.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant violated or interfered with the maintenance of the common life of the plaintiff and C, and the fact that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering is sufficiently ratified in light of the empirical rule. The defendant's improper act constitutes tort under the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

3. The scope of the liability for damages is about the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff, and the amount of consolation money that the Defendant suffered by tort.