(b) Eligibility for the defendant in claiming confirmation of existence of de facto marital relations with the deceased.

B. In a claim for confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship in the past, there is no express provision in the case where one of the parties dies, but Article 865 of the Civil Act and Article 863 of the Civil Act on the claim for confirmation of the existence of paternity, which is a litigation for confirmation of the existence of a status, may apply mutatis

2. It is confirmed that a de facto marital relationship exists between the Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty at the time of the deceased Nonparty’s death.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances.

A. The Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) seek confirmation of the past fact that a de facto matrimonial relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The instant lawsuit seeking confirmation is an unlawful lawsuit that does not constitute the subject of confirmation or has no interest in confirmation, and even if not, there is no express provision that one of the parties is able to claim confirmation of the de facto marital relationship against the prosecutor when he died, and thus, the Defendant did not have the standing to claim confirmation of the de facto marital relationship against the Defendant. Thus, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant is unlawful.

B. First, as to the above argument by the Defendant and the Intervenor that did not become the subject of confirmation or who did not have a benefit of confirmation, the claim for confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship is not merely seeking confirmation of the past facts, but also seeking confirmation of the status that there existed a de facto marital relationship. Thus, even if the marital relationship was de facto terminated due to the death of one of the parties, the claim for confirmation must be allowed if there are legal benefits to be immediately confirmed. Under Articles 3, 9-6, and 12 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 16 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 16 and 16 of the same Act, of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, where the worker died due to occupational accident, the person who was supported by the worker at the time of the worker’s death is entitled to receive survivors’ benefits in the same order as the deceased’s spouse under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and thus, even if the deceased living together with the Plaintiff was unable to receive survivors’ benefits in accordance with the purport of the provision of Seoul Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

C. Next, as to the above argument by the defendant and the intervenor who did not have a standing to sue, the claim for confirmation of the existence of a marital relationship in the past is merely a form of seeking confirmation of the previous status relationship, and whether the defendant is a person, and there is no reason to be an obstacle to the resolution of the actual problem, and the claim for confirmation of the existence of a marital relationship is also a kind of lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the status relationship. In light of the fact that even though there is no express provision, it is reasonable to apply mutatis mutandis the provision of Article 865 of the Civil Act concerning the claim for confirmation of the existence of a marital relationship, which is a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the status relationship, and Article 863 of the Civil Act concerning the claim for confirmation of the existence of a marital relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu76, Mar. 8, 1983). Thus, even in the lawsuit of this case seeking the confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased, the prosecutor of the defendant and the defendant are not entitled to accept.

2. Judgment on the merits

가. 갑 제1호증 내지 제4호증, 제6호증의 1 내지 13, 제7,8호증의 각 1,2의 각 기재와 당심 증인 이운학, 정준화, 정말희의 각 증언 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1968.6.27.생의 미혼녀로서 1991.1. 중순경 친구의 소개로 1964.8.10.생의 미혼남인 망인을 만나 사귀다가 같은 해 2.24.경부터 망인이 경영하던 점촌시 충현동 79의 8 소재 “남북갑피(구두방)”에서 망인과 동거생활을 시작한 사실, 망인은 구두방을 경영하여 얻은 수입으로 원고를 부양하고 원고는 가사일을 맡아 망인을 뒷바라지하면서 망인의 모친으로서 경북 문경군 호계면 (마을명 생략)리에 거주하고 있는 참가인을 수시로 방문하여 음식을 만들고 청소와 빨래를 하는 등으로 참가인의 집안일을 거들어 준 사실, 같은 해 6.경 망인의 형수가 다리수술을 하는 바람에 그 자녀들을 돌볼 사람이 없게 되자 원고가 그 자녀들을 데려다가 한 달 이상이나 돌봐 주고 그 해 추석에 원고와 망인이 참가인의 집에서 참가인의 가족들과 인사를 나누고 망인의 망부에 대한 차례를 올리게 되자 참가인의 가족들과 원고의 가족들도 원고와 망인을 사실상 부부로 인정하게 된 사실, 같은 해 12.경 구두방 영업이 여의치 아니한 상태에서 점포의 임대차기간이 만료되자 망인은 구두방 영업을 그만두고 다른 직장을 구하기 위하여 서울로 간 사실, 망인이 안정된 직장을 구하지 못한 채 건설공사 현장에서 일용노동자로 일하게 되는 바람에 원고는 망인을 따라 서울로 거처를 옮기지 못하고 점촌에 있는 원고의 집과 문경군에 있는 참가인의 집을 왕래하면서 망인과 떨어져 생활한 사실, 1992.2.경까지도 망인이 안정된 직장을 구하지 못하였으나 원고와 망인이 무한정 떨어져 생활하기가 곤란하여 원고는 일단 거처를 서울로 옮겨 안정된 직장을 구할 때까지 여관 등에 임시로 거처를 정하여 생활하기로 하고 간단한 취사도구와 의복만을 준비한 채 서울로 올라가 공사현장 부근인 서울 금호동 소재 “정원여관”에 거처를 정한 후 그 곳에서 망인과 동거생활을 계속한 사실, 같은 해 4.말경 망인이 서울 가리봉동 소재 지하철 공사장에서 일을 하게 되자 원고와 망인은 공사현장 부근에 있는 “88여관”으로 거처를 옮겨 동거생활을 계속한 사실, 원고는 망인의 수입으로 여관에서 동거생활을 하면서도 장차 망인이 안정된 직장을 구한 후 셋방을 얻어 이사할 때를 대비하여 가계부까지 정리한 사실, 같은 해 5.25. 망인이 지하철 공사현장에서 작업을 하던 중 터널에 추락하여 중상을 입고 병원에 입원하게 되자 원고는 그때부터 같은 해 5.27. 망인이 사망할 때까지 망인을 간병하였고, 망인의 시신을 화장한 후에는 원고가 그 뼛가루를 산천에 뿌린 사실 등을 각 인정할 수 있고, 이에 일부 반하는 을 제1호증의 1 내지 4, 제2호증의 각 기재와 당심 증인 1의 증언은 이를 믿지 아니하고, 을 제3호증의 1 내지 4, 제4호증의 1,2, 제5호증의 각 기재 또는 사진 영상만으로는 위 인정사실을 뒤집기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 뒤집을 증거가 없다.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, around February 24, 1991, the plaintiff and the deceased start their living with their intention of marriage, and thus the plaintiff and the deceased are deemed to have the substance of marital life, and their marital life continued until the time of the death of the deceased on May 27, 1992. Thus, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased existed at the time of the death of the deceased.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court below which dismissed the lawsuit of this case is unfair. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant who lost

Judges Choi Ki-su (Presiding Judge)