A. The Plaintiff and Nonparty C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 4, 2012, and have generated her husband and wife in 2013.

B. From December 2013, the Defendant entered into a relationship with C with the bad will.

C. On March 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was traveling at a place where it is impossible to identify the place around May 31, 2014, from May 31, 2014; (b) the South Island on May 31, 2014; (c) the level of reinforcement on June 4, 2014; (d) the leisure season on June 19, 2014; (b) the Incheon Metropolitan City on August 23, 2014; and (c) the Chuncheon on July 4, 2015; and (d) the period of traveling around July 27, 2014; and (e) the period of traveling around July 18, 2015.

Since August 2015, the defendant started with C on January 2019, which was not met with C, and started with C on February 20, 2019, and started with C, and started with C on February 20, 2019, left from March 1, 2019 to March 3, 2019, and was traveling with Austria from March 18, 2019 to December 21, 201.

E. C sent a house around March 2019 with the Defendant until C returned to the house on April 11, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 3 through 11, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the aforementioned facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C or interfering with its maintenance, thereby suffering mental pain on the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obliged to bring the Plaintiff to money for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that C was unaware of his spouse's existence due to the concealment of the fact that C was the father and son at the time of the first arrival.

However, the defendant.