A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept, including the adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense but includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance. Whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on specific cases.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). In full view of each description and the whole purport of argument as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including the number of branch numbers), the plaintiff is legally married with Eul and has 2 South and North 10 under the chain of law. The defendant, even though he is aware that Eul is a spouse, has continuously brought back to South and North Korea, such as giving and taking improper mers between C from 2001 to 2012 and giving and taking money transactions. The defendant's unlawful act constitutes an act infringing the plaintiff's common life and interfering with the maintenance thereof. Since it is obvious that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant had C and C’s active demand, and even if the Defendant’s act constituted an unlawful act, the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C was in a state of failure due to the nature conflict, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute a tort against the Plaintiff.

Domination, the acts of the Defendant and C are unlawful.