A. On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff married with Nonparty C and has one child among them.

B. The Defendant knew that C is a spouse, and took part in the sexual intercourse since January 2014.

C. Around September 2015, the Defendant first contacted the Plaintiff, and “The Defendant only told the Plaintiff’s husband C to have long been living with the Plaintiff’s husband C, and that C has been divorced and divorced to the Defendant, and it is only that it did not divorce for a long time, and the Plaintiff also knew of such fact.”

On June 30, 2016, even though the defendant knows that C still maintains a matrimonial relationship, he/she entered the late night telecom with C and entered the late night telecom, and later came from the telecom.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence No. 3, evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination:

A. The husband or wife of a liability for damages is liable to live together with each other, and the husband or wife bears the sexual duty that should not engage in any unlawful act as a content of the liability;

A third party shall not interfere with a married couple's communal living falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's communal living by interfering with another person's communal living.

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, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the health care unit and the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant’s tort is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the tort, by being aware that C is a spouse.