A. On May 10, 2003, the Plaintiff has two children under the chain of law, who completed a marriage report with C on May 10, 2003.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the workplace rent C is a son, maintained an inappropriate relationship by holding a telephone call expressing that it is a resistant relationship several times from around November 2017 to December 201 of the same year.

C. Around January 2018, the Defendant affixed the Defendant’s unmanned seal to the effect that the Plaintiff “satisfyed about an inappropriate relationship with C. It will not meet or contact with C.” which the Plaintiff drawn up and delivered to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Gap evidence 11 to 16 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A. A third party’s liability for damages may not interfere with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person. A third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes tort in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, “unlawful act” refers to a broad concept that includes adultery, but does not reach the adultery, but it includes any unlawful act that does not comply with the husband’s duty of good faith, and whether it is an unlawful act, shall be assessed in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on specific cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Meu7, May 24, 198; 8Meu268, Nov. 10, 1992).