The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff completed a marriage report with C on October 21, 1985, and is between husband and wife with children.

B. The Defendant and the Defendant’s husband D are between the Plaintiff’s husband and the Plaintiff’s husband and the Plaintiff’s husband and the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband with knowledge.

C. around 2016, C was responsible for the overall management of the village project in the Ycheon-gun E-gun, and the Defendant was leading to the said project.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C committed unlawful acts such as visiting the Defendant’s apartment in Chuncheon and telephone conversations with the Defendant, while running a village business in 2016, Seocheon-gun E-gun, and thereby causing the failure of the relationship between the Plaintiff and C. This led to the failure of the marital relationship with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff for mental suffering caused by the above improper act.

B. Although the Defendant’s assertion was made by telephone call or was made in the course of making money transactions together with C and village business, the Defendant did not commit an unlawful act.

3. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers), it is recognized that Eul divided a day-to-day conversation with the defendant into a telephone and referred to as "self" to the defendant, and that the defendant stated to the plaintiff that "A has a little time between C and C and C, and has a mental dancing with C."

However, only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 8 (including additional numbers) submitted by the plaintiff are insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant committed a fraudulent act that is sufficient to recognize that the defendant did not fulfill his/her duty of sexual good faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, the defendant's husband stated that "the defendant's act of misconduct is a talking talking that there is no doubt that the defendant committed an illegal act, and there is no doubt about one time, and thus the defendant is believed to be certain."