The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

The gist of the facts of the appellant's appeal of this case is that the appellant 3 and the defendant 3 were married and actually living together, and the respondent 1 and the defendant 2 were processed in so-called "the defendant 3 as the parents of the defendant 3, and the respondent 1 and the defendant 2 received mental distress due to the plaintiff 3's improper destruction of a de facto marriage, and the respondent 1 and the defendant 2 are paid consolation money for this reason. The court below's decision is justified in holding that not only the parties to the matrimonial engagement who illegally reversed the above matrimonial engagement, but also the parents of the parties to the same matrimonial engagement can claim damages in accordance with the procedure under the Family Trial Act including those cases where the parties to the same matrimonial engagement participate in the wrongful destruction, and the defendant's 1 and the defendant 2 are not only the defendant 3's parents, but also the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 are also the parents of the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's mental distress due to such unlawful destruction of a de facto marriage.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the records, since the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts are matters belonging to the exclusive authority of the judge of the original court, the measures that the court below recognized the same facts as those stated in the judgment are just and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit, such as misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)