beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In full view of the following facts, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of each description and image of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 12 through 15, 16, 17, 28, 30, 33, 44, 45, 46, 48, and Eul's evidence Nos. 13 and 17 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleadings, and only the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 4, 5 and 24 are insufficient to reverse the above recognition.
1) On December 1, 2005, the Plaintiff and C have two children under the 2006 and 2008. 2) On December 201, 2016, the Defendant came to know that C was the subscribers of the NAV online Ban, and he was able to come up with only a kind of friendship at the offline group of the BanV, and he was aware of C’s spouse from April 2017. From this point of time, the Defendant continued to have a sexual relationship with C while staying in the Defendant’s house located in Ulsan where C does not have to return home from Busan to Ulsan.
3) Around June 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of the relationship between C and the Defendant, and received continuous mental and medical treatment from around that time to the nearest, due to symptoms such as labor, depression, disguised disorder, etc., and the marriage relation is currently being maintained as a conflict with C. However, the marriage relation is still being maintained. (B) The third party’s intervention in the marital life of another person, thereby causing the failure of the marital life, etc., which is the essence of the marriage, shall not interfere with the marital community. The third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with the marital life, which is the essence of the marriage, and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above recognition facts, the Defendant, even though having knowledge that it had a spouse, maintains the relationship with C with C, and thereby, maintains the relationship with C.