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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed a marriage report on January 27, 2010, and maintains marital relationship until the date of closing argument.

B. Around 2004, the Defendant was taking part in the teaching system on the premise of marriage with D. Around April 201, D re-consected D, and committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse while maintaining the same until May 2016, even though D was aware that he/she was a spouse.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple's communal living which corresponds to the nature of the marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing a failure of the married couple's communal living;

In principle, 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 the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). B.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant continued to commit such unlawful acts while teaching with D, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's and D's communal living or interfering with their maintenance. Since the defendant's improper act is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the above defendant's improper act, the defendant is obliged to do so in monetaryly to the plaintiff.

3. Scope of damages.

A. The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier, namely, the Defendant came to enter into school with D’s marriage promise, and did not go against D’s difficulty, right of lectures, and pecuniary help.