A. The Plaintiff and Nonparty C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on August 4, 1992.

B. The Defendant brought about an inappropriate relationship with C even though he/she knows that C is a spouse from the date of the absence to the date of 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 12 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In principle, a third party who is liable to compensate for damages by committing an unlawful act with the spouse and thereby infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse and interfering with the maintenance of a common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage, and thereby infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014; 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept that includes adultery, and does not reach the common sense, but all unlawful acts that do not comply with the marital duty, and whether it is an unlawful act or not shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on specific cases.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant, even though being aware that C is a spouse, has a spouse, has maintained an inappropriate relationship with C and has caused mental suffering to C’s spouse. This constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff’s mental suffering by money. In light of the foregoing, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff’s mental suffering.

① According to the Kakao Stockholm message (Evidence A No. 9), “I believe that I would have known that I would have known that I would have known that I would have been prior to their initial arrivals,” and “I would like to know that I would have known that I would have been prior to their initial arrivals.”