1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and C are married couple who reported their marriage on February 3, 1988.

B. C around 2004, around 2004, was sent to the restaurant operated by the Defendant as a customer and was known to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed an intermediate act between C and C, and C and the defendant revealed the relationship between C and the defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages arising therefrom, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s net integrity of the Plaintiff’s home was broken and brought about an irrecoverable mental suffering.

3. The judgment-making third party shall not interfere with the marital life falling under the nature of the marriage, such as intervening in the marital life of another person and causing a failure of the marital life;

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 Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). The term “illegal act committed by a spouse” means an act that includes a liverer, but does not reach the common sense as a broad concept, and does not reach the common sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Meu678, Dec. 6, 2002). Whether an act was an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances according to a specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5, 87Meu6, May 26, 1987). In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of health belts, Gap 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, Eul 5, and Eul 6, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant's mobile phone number (D) was stored on the screen on the video page on the Handphone of C, and C's Handphone.