A. On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with C on March 8, 2013, and has lived as a husband and wife, and also has raised minor children.

B. While working in the same workplace as C, the Defendant, while having been working in the same workplace as C, received text messages containing several expressions from November 2018 to June 2019 with C, and continued to commit unlawful acts with knowledge that C had a spouse.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 or 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which falls under the essence of marriage, by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s community life.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). “Unlawful conduct by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act means a wider concept including a adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, includes any unlawful conduct that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of good faith, and whether it constitutes an unlawful conduct ought to be evaluated

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). B.

Judgment

1 In full view of the facts acknowledged in paragraph 1 above A.

In light of the relevant legal principles of Paragraph C, the defendant, knowing that he/she has a spouse, committed an illegal act with C, thereby infringing upon and hindering the maintenance of the common life of both the plaintiff and C, and thereby, it is sufficiently ratified in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental pain.