1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed in this Court against the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the claim of this case is that of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following "B. Additional Determination" as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Additional Judgment 1) Defendant’s assertion Nos. 2, 3, and 7 were stolen by the Plaintiff’s smartphone and acquired or produced through unlawful censorship or wiretapping of C’s Kakaox and telegram dialogues pertaining to telecommunications without the consent of the parties to conversations, including C and the Defendant, and thus, cannot be used as evidence pursuant to Article 4 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. 2) The adoption of evidence under the Civil Procedure Act that adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence is at the discretion of the fact-finding court and it is unnecessary to be bound by formal and legal rules of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da7198, 77204, Apr. 13, 2012; 9Da1789, May 25, 1999). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that it is more important to consider the above victim’s legal interest to be protected, rather than the Defendant’s request for substantial balancing of interests and interests.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the counterclaim of this case filed in the trial

A. On April 30, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was aware of the Defendant’s relationship between husband C and C based on illegally acquired information, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother made phone calls to the Defendant.

As a result, the defendant could not be considered as a cleaning agent and even C.