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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and C had one child as a legally married couple who completed the marriage report, but the agreement was married on January 6, 2017.

B. C, around December 2018, retired from office as D, which is a supplier of meal service goods located at the Seocho-si (hereinafter referred to as “company”), and came to associate with the Defendant who was enrolled in the company around January 2019.

C. On February 25, 2019, the Plaintiff and C reported their marriage again.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was married with C on January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship while living together from February 2, 2018, and again reported the marriage on February 25, 2019. The Defendant, despite being aware of the de facto marital relationship between C and the Plaintiff and the report of marriage, was obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff, on the ground that he/she was aware of his/her de facto marital relationship with C and the report of marriage, and caused emotional distress to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the statements and videos stated in Gap evidence 6 through 9 regarding the claim for damages on the ground of infringement of de facto marital relationship, C sent the Defendant a message to the effect that C does not refuse to live as the plaintiff, and a small room photograph and child birth, but the above fact of recognition alone was found to have a de facto marital relationship in which C and C raise their children while living together with the intention of marriage from February 2018.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant committed an unlawful act while recognizing it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence 6-1 through 7 and Gap evidence 9, C sent a message to the defendant to the effect that "the defendant is love," "the homicide," and "the plaintiff is divorced from the plaintiff," and the defendant is consistent with the intention of marriage in light of the attitude of this C.