A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on October 17, 2007.

B. While being aware of the fact that C is a spouse by marriage, the Defendant: (a) sent a conversation with C, such as “competing”, “at the same time,” “at the same time,” “at the same time,” and “at the same time, there is no need to love one another; and (b) sent and received the message as follows.”

(전략) 피고: 사랑해 C: 전화할까 피고: 모닝고백ㅋ 응 C: 너무너무 사랑해~~♡♡ (중략) C: 여보~~ 사랑해~~♡♡ 피고: 응 나도 C: 여보 어디가~~ (중략) C: 사랑해~~♡♡ 피고: 나도요 C: ㅎㅎ 너무너무 가슴 뛴다~~ 피고: ㅎㅎ C: 내사랑~♡♡ 여보~ 점심 안 먹고 갈거지 (중략) C: 여보~~ 역시 없어~~ 여보 차도림~♡♡ 피고: 응 고마워♡♡ C: 사랑해~~♡♡ (후략) [인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 2, 4호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Determination:

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse constitutes tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) According to the above acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental distress due to the infringement of a married couple’s communal life due to an unlawful act between the Defendant and C, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay compensation for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's marriage between the plaintiff and C has already occurred, so the plaintiff's marriage does not lead to the failure due to the defendant's act.