A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on July 11, 1998, and have two children under the chain.

B. The Plaintiff and C did not wish to live a family life due to their own differences of nature. On February 2018, 2018, the Plaintiff and C were dissatisfied with each other during the period of non-permanent closure, and C was from the home around March 2018 to the present day.

C. The Defendant became aware of C around May 2017, and, along with C, went to Japan on the same day on December 6, 2017.

After C, from February 24, 2019 to February 27, 2019, from February 24, 2019 to February 27, 2019, the Plaintiff started from the Plaintiff’s house, and Da has sexual intercourse in the telecom from April 23, 2019 to April 29 of the same month.

C A. On May 11, 2018, the Daejeon Family Court filed a divorce suit against the Plaintiff as the Daejeon Family Court 2018ddan53206, but the said court dismissed the claim on November 13, 2019 on the ground that C was the responsible spouse.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 23, 24, 28, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the fact inquiry results of the Daejeon Foreigner's Office of Entry and Departure of this Court (as stated in Gap evidence 30), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on a couple’s communal life, which corresponds to the essence of marriage, or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, by committing a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant’s act of committing an unlawful act, including sexual intercourse with C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, constitutes an unlawful act that harms the peace in home against the Plaintiff. Since it constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to bring the Plaintiff a money or money.)