1. The Defendant jointly with C, as to KRW 12,00,000, and as to the Plaintiff, the year from January 23, 2019 to August 26, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are married couple who completed the marriage report on July 12, 1993, and have three children.

B. From June 2018, the Defendant performed an election campaign by receiving C’s instruction on the joint seal operated by C from June 2018.

C. On January 23, 2019, from around 21:00 to 23:30 on the same day, the Plaintiff recorded approximately 30 minutes of the conversation between C and the Defendant by setting up a cell phone with a function of recording on the part of the driver’s seat of the vehicle operated by C, after the driver’s seat.

The summary of the conversation is as follows:

J. M. H. : as you do, I.D.;

(i) Doesc due to a motor vehicle returned to her home: She was flicker C:

(zc) skin : Elock C:

i. Patch: Not, she shall not be fatched and batched C:

(z) feet: He knows that he enters his vehicle, thereby considering C: (Listening) entry.

Peda: Bosace et al., but C: Bosace et al.:

i. At the time of shashing the hands from the window, C: was seen.

Rabal Round

(o) [Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, and Eul evidence 18 and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) In light of the foregoing legal principles, considering the health class in this case, the Defendant and C divided on January 23, 2019, and the contents of the above dialogue, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant and C had a relationship with the opposite intercourse with the opposite gender at the time of the above conversation.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant and C have taken part in several times at the time of the above conversation on January 23, 2019, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.