1. Of the instant lawsuits, 5,500,000 won for the appointment of an attorney-at-law and for this, from October 19, 2019 to January 22, 2020.

1. As a matter of course, the Plaintiff’s determination on the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for attorney’s appointment fees among the instant lawsuit is against the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 5,500,000 for the attorney’s fee incurred while proceeding with the Defendant for the preservation of evidence related to unlawful acts (Seoul Family Court 2019 businessz31528) between the Defendant and C.

However, there is no interest in filing a lawsuit separately because the cost of attorney-at-law appointment can be reimbursed through the process of confirmation of the cost of lawsuit.

(see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu803, Mar. 10, 1987). Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case claiming KRW 5,500,000 and damages for delay thereof is unlawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by causing a failure of a married 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). Meanwhile, “illegal conduct by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a wider concept including adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful conduct that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of good faith, and whether it is an unlawful conduct or not should

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

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 1 through 10 (including branch numbers in the case of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as of April 23, 2004.