1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap's 1 to 4, and 6, and the testimony in the trial witness C, the whole purport of the pleadings.

The plaintiff is the spouse of C who completed the marriage report with C on November 5, 1996, and has two children between C and C, and the defendant was a person who was under the premise of C and C prior to marriage with C.

B. Around 1994, the Defendant and C continued contact. The Defendant first contacted C around 201 and sent contact through telephone, text, and Kakakao Stockholm messages until October 2013.

C. The Defendant sent C a video link containing the face value of the film “Naz,” which was controversial on the face of the dynasian president, with the notice of his birth to C, and sent C a message using the title “C,” “C, i.e., “I, I, you, you, you, you,” and “C, I, I, you, you, send the message to the Defendant.” The Defendant sent the message using the title “I, I, I,” “I, I,” “I,” “I,” and “I,” respectively.

The defendant was aware that C was married with another person.

2. The existence of a liability for damages and the illegal act of a spouse under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code is a larger concept including a adultery, and includes any unlawful act which does not reach the common sense but does not fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of the husband and wife, and whether it is an unlawful act or not shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation of each specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the foregoing recognition, C’s act of having contact with the Defendant, who was a partner on the premise of marriage in the past, for a period of two years, and using the word “continuous”, etc. is deemed to have committed an unlawful act in a broad sense that the couple’s duty of mutual assistance was neglected.