A. The Plaintiff is a legal husband or wife who completed the marriage report on July 16, 2014.

The defendant is a person who is the spouse of the non-party D and the non-party D who has completed the marriage report on February 15, 2013.

B. The Defendant became aware of C of the movement while working as a health cluber.

From March 2017, the Defendant and C had a travel system and had a sexual intercourse several times.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The occurrence of liability for damages includes all acts that are not faithful to the duty of good faith as a spouse, and whether an act is a broad concept rather than so-called “illegal act” should be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on each specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68, Nov. 10, 192). Meanwhile, in principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple and interfering with their maintenance, and infringing on his/her spouse’s rights as his/her spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu297, Nov. 20, 2014). Examining the above facts in light of such legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental distress by infringing on the essence of marital life or interfering with the maintenance of the spouse’s rights as the spouse C, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse.

According to the above evidence, at the time of fraudulent act, the defendant was aware that C was the spouse.