Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and revoked.

In fact, on June 10, 1998, the Plaintiff had two children as the legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on June 10, 1998.

From the end of 2015 to March 2017, the Defendant was in a restaurant run by C, and was in a restaurant run by C, or in a house run by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The act of a third party who is liable for damages to determine the purport of the whole pleadings and records and videos of Gap's 1 through 26 (including additional numbers) by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple, thereby infringing or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage and infringing his/her rights as the spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, in principle, constitutes a tort.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach a common sense but does not faithfully fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of both spouses, includes any unlawful act. Whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of the specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). The Defendant asserted that C was not aware of the fact that C was a father-Nam. However, in light of the following: (a) the teaching period between the Defendant and C is a relatively prolonged period; (b) the Defendant frequently visited C at a restaurant operated by C; and (c) the Defendant frequently visited C with C’s seat; and (b) the Defendant became aware of C’s being the father-Nam after the lapse of a certain period of time, it is reasonable to deem that C was aware of the fact that C was a father-Nam.

Therefore, according to the above facts, the defendant committed an illegal act with C, who is the plaintiff's spouse, thereby infringing on the marital life between the plaintiff and C or hindering its maintenance, and infringing on the plaintiff's right as the plaintiff's spouse.