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

On November 8, 2005, the Plaintiff continued to maintain a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff even after the disguised divorce, and the Defendant, knowing that two persons were in a de facto marital relationship, committed both unlawful acts concurrently, and thereby, led to the failure of a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and Byung, accordingly, asserts that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damage.

2. Determination

In full view of the purport of the statement and arguments by evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was married concurrently and slickly, but on November 8, 2005, it can be acknowledged that there was a confusion between the plaintiff and slickly. However, in order to establish a de facto marital relationship, the parties have to have the substance of a marital life that can be objectively recognized as a marital community. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and slickly formed a de facto marital relationship in mental, social, and economic aspects, such as marriage with a married will and communal life, even after the consultation has been married in around 2005. Even if a de facto marital relationship between two persons is recognized, Byung is registered as the resident registration at the same domicile as the plaintiff and the living together with the plaintiff until now, and since the relationship with the plaintiff or two persons maintained the form of life without the defendant's previous convictions, it is difficult to view that the relationship was broken down due to the failure of the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the reason of marriage.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Muma decoration

Judges Dognaia