A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on May 2, 1980.

B. C around May 2015, the Defendant, who had worked as a marbial mar in an entertainment drinking house, was able to contact with the Defendant and entered into a sexual intercourse with the Defendant with a private person by June 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. 1) A third party’s liability for damages does not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a married couple’s community life, causing the failure of a married couple’s community life. A third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes, in principle, a tort is established (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the aforementioned facts acknowledged, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant knowingly committed an unlawful act with C with the knowledge of the spouse, thereby infringing on and impeding the spouse’s community life falling under the essence of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, and infringing on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the spouse. In addition, it is clear in light of empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for damages due to a tort committed against the Plaintiff’s mental distress.

The testimony of the witness D alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant committed a fraudulent act against C and his own free will by failing to force and threaten C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion.