1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) A third party 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;

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014; 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept, including the adultery, and includes any unlawful act that does not reach the gap between the couple, but is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance, and whether it constitutes an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on specific cases.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5, 87Meu6, May 26, 1987). B.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings and arguments in the descriptions and videos of Gap 1 through 4, 8, 10, 11, 16 through 20, 23, and 24 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff has maintained legal marital relationship after filing a marriage report with Eul on December 27, 200. The defendant provided teaching services to Eul on December 27, 2015 or around February 8, 2016, and became aware of the fact that Eul was a spouse by telephone from the plaintiff on August 8, 2016. The defendant, even though he was aware of his spouse, did not arrange the relationship with Eul, and without arranging the relationship with Eul on September 20, 2016, after having resided in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Officetel from November 1, 2016 to February 3, 2017.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has been aware that C is a spouse, and continuously contact with C is exchanged with C, and in the telecom.