1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 26, 1995, the Plaintiff and C had two children (the 1995sssssssssssss, 1997) among themselves as legal married couple who completed a marriage report.

B. Around 2009, the Defendant came to know of C, and took care of, around December 2013, while living together.

C. Around May 2016, the Defendant received text messages from the Plaintiff to the effect that C is a son, while maintaining a living relationship with C by October 2016, knowing that C had a spouse, by being aware that C had a spouse.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 2, Gap's 5, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The act of a third party making a judgment on the cause of the claim, which infringes on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interferes with the maintenance thereof and infringes on the right as the spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the fact-finding under paragraph (1), the Plaintiff is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the infringement of marital life due to an unlawful act between the Defendant and C, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Plaintiff emotional distressed by money.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a tort against the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff and C’s marital relationship was substantially broken down at the time when the Defendant associates with C.

In full view of the facts stated in the evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and C attempted to make a divorce around 2010, and the Plaintiff and C had been in fact separate from each other, and even though they had been in fact, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had already been in a de facto marital state with C before it was in conflict with C, and it is otherwise recognized.