1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2, 1996, the Plaintiff is a legally married couple who reported a marriage with C on November 2, 1996, and has 1 South and North son under the chain.

B. At around April 2014, the Defendant started to meet or return to the meeting of the Dong Chang-gu from an elementary school. By April 2016, the Defendant committed unlawful acts, such as talking at any time and making two physical contacts.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), Eul's witness's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Even if a third party is involved in a marital life of another person, which is equivalent to the essence of a marriage, such as causing a failure of a marital life by intervening in a marital life of the other person, and the act of a third party to infringe on or interfere with a marital life which corresponds to the essence of the marriage by committing an unlawful act with the other party and thereby inflict mental pain on the spouse by infringing on the right as the spouse; and

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). The term “illegal act committed by a spouse” refers to an act that includes a adultery and does not reach a common sense as a broad concept, but does not reach a common sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Meu678, Dec. 6, 2002). Whether it constitutes an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on a specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5, 87Meu6, May 26, 1987). B.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant knew that C has a spouse, and committed an illegal act for a considerable period of time with C, and such defendant's act is clear that C's act constitutes an act of infringing upon C's spouse's right to community life and causing mental suffering to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is the mental suffering of the plaintiff.