1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while living together with the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) and married around 1989.

Under this chain, there are South-North D(E) and South F(G).

B. Since D was out of the Republic of Korea around the day when D was enrolled at an elementary school, the deceased lived separately with his/her family without any particular visit, except for the case where D was set up at the house once a few years.

C. Meanwhile, the defendant has been raising two children while operating the fireworks house after being separated from the husband on February 16, 2004 with the former husband.

The defendant, around 2007, developed the deceased, who was a guest of the fireworks house, as well as his living together. D.

On February 15, 2016, the Deceased died at the residence where the Defendant and the Defendant live together.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul Nos. 2 (including branch numbers, if any), defendant for the trial of the party, defendant for the trial of the party, the result of the plaintiff's individual questioning, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as living together with the deceased, with knowledge of the deceased’s spouse or without gross negligence.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the marital life of the plaintiff and the deceased and inflicted mental pain on the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to a tort, and the plaintiff is liable to pay consolation money of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages.

B. The Defendant, as a result of the Defendant’s interview with the Deceased, was identified from the Deceased to his living together.

The plaintiff and the deceased were aware that they were divorced or divorced, and they did not know whether they continue to have a marital relationship under the law, and they did not have a duty of full care to confirm this.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute a tort since there was no intention or negligence that infringes on the marital life of the plaintiff and the deceased.

. ..