A claim for damages caused by divorce, including a claim against a third party, shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the family court (Article 2(1)1(c) of the Family Litigation Act), but the plaintiff in this case only claims for damages arising from a fraudulent act committed by the defendant and C, and does not claim that the plaintiff caused divorce due to the defendant's fraudulent act. Thus, the claim in this case shall be deemed as a claim for damages arising from a general illegal act prescribed in Article 750 of the Civil Act, not a claim for divorce

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is under the jurisdiction of the court which has jurisdiction over the domicile of the defendant, the defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

2. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, and 9 (including each number), witness D, and Eul's testimony as to the merits of the case, the defendant has a duty to give money to the plaintiff who suffered emotional distress due to the defendant's unlawful act, since the defendant knew that the plaintiff's husband C was the father of his husband, but was over several times from 2009 to 2012. Thus, the defendant is obligated to give money to the plaintiff who suffered emotional distress due to the defendant's unlawful act.

Furthermore, the amount of consolation money is examined. On October 29, 2014, when the relationship between the Defendant and C was discovered to the Plaintiff, the Defendant and C were divorced in accordance with the decision of recommending reconciliation rendered in the case of divorce No. 2014da57788, Oct. 29, 2014, but it is difficult to deem that the fraudulent act between the Defendant and C was a cause of conclusive divorce. Rather, it is difficult to view that C’s excessive debt is a cause of divorce.