1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 1990, the Plaintiff completed the report of marriage with C on November 12, 199 and has one parent under the chain.

B. From around 2000, the Defendant began living together with C and became aware that C is a spouse around 2005.

C. On the other hand, around August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff came to know of the relationship between C and the Defendant, which was transmitted by the Defendant and C.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the court on this safety defense is that the lawsuit of this case is brought against the plaintiff and C, which caused the failure due to the defendant's improper act, and thus, the claim for damages of this case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court because the lawsuit of this case falls under the family litigation case of Article 2 (1) 1-2-2 of the Family Litigation Act, and thus, it includes the claim against the third party for damages due to the divorce of "Article 2 (1) 1-2 of the Family Litigation Act"

The meaning of "" refers to a claim for damages against mental suffering caused by divorce itself, and the claim for damages arising from an individual cause, which constitutes a cause of judicial divorce, constitutes a civil case. This case is not a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff on the ground of divorce, and the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the facts found above, the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as living together, even though he knows that he is the father and son, and thereby infringing upon and hindering the marital life of the plaintiff and C, which constitutes the essence of marriage, and as such, it is obvious that the plaintiff suffered mental pain in light of the empirical rule, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, supra).