1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In full view of the facts of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 to 4, 2-6, 7-1 to 3, 8-11, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged. The descriptions or images of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are insufficient to reverse the recognition.

1) On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff and C had one child under the chain, and the Defendant also worked in the same workplace as C with the Plaintiff’s husband. 2) The Defendant, upon being aware that C was the Plaintiff’s husband, maintained the relationship with C from February 2, 2017 to June 2017. During that period, the Defendant, upon being aware that C was the Plaintiff’s husband, provided that C had a sexual intercourse with C by means of text messages, etc., and during that period, provided that (i) Plaintiff C and C were exchanged with the Defendant’s wife around the Defendant’s residence; (ii) had a sexual intercourse with the Defendant.

3) On April 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of the relationship with the Defendant of C, thereby experiencing serious conflicts with C. Since then C requires divorce against the Plaintiff, and on December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff is currently pending in the litigation by filing a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Ulsan Family Court 2017ddan27518). As a result, the Plaintiff is subject to mental counseling and pharmacologic treatment, etc. due to symptoms, such as anxiety, influenites, and weddings, etc.

B. The judgment of the third party shall not interfere with the marital life falling under the essence of the marriage by intervening in the marital life of the other party, causing the failure of the marital life. The third party's act of infringing on or interfering with the marital life falling under the essence of the marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant knows that C has a spouse and knows C.