2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. It is reasonable to view that the other party’s act constitutes a tort by infringing one’s sexual self-determination when the other party’s act was contrary to public order and good morals even though the other party was not liable for criminal liability, even if both parties were to have sexual intercourses by agreement.

In this case, according to the above facts of recognition, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the defendant concealeds the facts of marriage to the plaintiff and formed a sexual relationship based on the premise of marriage with the plaintiff constitutes an act contrary to public order and good morals. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that there was no deception by the plaintiff about the defendant's marriage during the school period. Therefore, in full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in Eul and Eul 5, the plaintiff can recognize the facts of the defendant's past marriage pictures through the defendant's personal website on the Internet. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff that the plaintiff was his/her father and his/her spouse, and continued to engage in the marriage as if he/she were married, and even after he/she had been faced, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff of his/her current father and his/her spouse during the school period from the time when he/she first arrived at the plaintiff through online specialized brokerage company to the time when he/she first turns out.