A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on July 30, 1976.

B. From around 2012, the Defendant began to meet with C from time to time with knowledge that C had a spouse by marriage.

C. Around March 2013, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the Defendant was congested with C. Since around that time, the Plaintiff, Dong, E, etc. continuously requested that the Defendant be hedging with C. However, the Defendant continued to serve as a bridge with C by refusing the request to the effect that C cannot be hedging because it is not subject to the taxation of tax base, because it is not subject to the taxation of tax base, and is living with C.

The defendant used C's corporate card to pay living expenses necessary for community life between the defendant and C.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, a third party’s act of infringing on a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, which constitutes a tort in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2), according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant continues to engage in an unlawful act with C while being aware that C has a spouse, thereby infringing on a couple’s communal life between the Plaintiff and C or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and causing emotional distress to the Plaintiff by infringing on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the spouse, and thus, is liable to compensate for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that at the time of the commencement of the defendant's teaching system with C, the joint living between the plaintiff and C had already been in a distress state, and that it would be divorced from C, and it is limited to C with C.