(b) Requirements for establishing a de facto marriage;

(c) Acknowledgement of a claim for compensation for wedding and marriage expenses spent in a de facto marriage;

B. A de facto marriage is established if the parties have taken a marriage ceremony on the premise of marriage and met the customary common sense and procedure that can be socially recognized as a marriage by completing a new marriage tour and a new behavior and starting a community life with a view to marriage.

C. Even if a de facto marriage was established, the above de facto marital relationship is resolved due to the failure within a short time that is not recognized as having actually achieved a community life of the married community, and therefore, if the marriage ceremony is deemed to be an expenditure for expenses incurred in relation to the marriage or for the delivery of a tugboat, the responsible party shall be liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the above marriage expenses and the return of a tugboat used for the marriage.

2. The remainder of claims against the appellee 1 and the claims against the appellee 2 and the claims against the appellee 1 are dismissed, respectively;

3. In the costs of a trial, the part arising from the principal trial between the petitioner and the respondent shall be divided into two parts and one of them shall be borne by the respondent and the remainder by the petitioner, and the part arising from the second instance shall be borne by the respondent and the respondent by the respondent, and the part arising from the second instance shall be borne by the petitioner and the respondent by the respondent.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

Trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent and a provisional execution judgment.

The claimant shall pay 7,427,00 won to the respondent 1 and the amount calculated by the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the service of the application for the modification of the purport of the request for adjudication on counter-performance to the full payment.

Anti-Costs of trial shall be borne by the claimant and a declaration of provisional execution.

(a) Demand against the respondent 1;

(1) 청구인과 피청구인 1사이의 결혼사진인 점에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 3(각 사진)의 각 영상과 진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제7호증(메모지), 갑 제8호증(진단서)의 각 기재 및 증인 강연삼, 고태송, 고태여, 박명훈의 각 증언에 심리의 전취지를 종합하면, 청구인은 청구외의 중매로 1987.1.16. 피청구인 1과 부산시 영도구 봉래동에 있는 현대예식장에서 결혼식을 올린 후 혼인신고를 마치지 않은 상태로 같은 날 경남 창녕군에 있는 부곡온천으로 신혼여행을 가서 초야를 치루고자 하였으나 피청구인의 완강한 거절로 성관계를 갖지 못한 채 돌아와서, 같은 날 17. 제주도에 있는 피청구인 1의 친정집으로 신행을 떠났으나 그곳에 머물던 1주일 동안에도 이렇다 할 이유도 없이 동침을 거절당하였던 사실, 이에 청구인은 피청구인 1의 과거를 의심하면서도 부산으로 돌아와서 같은 달 23.부산 영도구 청학동에 있는 방한칸을 얻어 신혼살림을 차려 보았으나 피청구인 1은 계속하여 1개월만 기다려 달라거나, 자신은 30분이상 성관계을 가져야 만족감을 얻는데 그렇게 할 수 있느냐, 자신은 임신을 할 수 없는 몸이라는 등 횡설수설을 하면서 동침을 거부하였고, 다음날 밤에도 내몸에 손을 대면 칼로 찔러 죽이겠다면서 잠옷바람을 뛰쳐나가 친정으로 돌아간 후 귀가치 않을뿐 아니라 이에 청구인이 피청구인 1을 찾아가서 귀가를 종용하였는데도 청구인의 뺨을 때리면서 오늘까지 남자의 빰을 때린 것이 두번째인데 도저히 살 수 없다고 한 사실, 청구인은 혼자서 위 청학동에 있는 신혼살림방으로 돌아와 가재를 정리하던 끝에 피청구인 1의 화장대설합에서 위 피청구인 모교 교사인 " (학교명 생략)중학교 ○○○선생님"이라는 이름 아래 " ○○씨 ○아를 잊어주세요", "그동안 정말 즐겁고 유익한 생활을 했던 것 같아요. ○○씨가 사랑하던 ○아는 울었어요", " ○○씨 아내가 되겠다고 약속했던 ○아의 모습은 어디론가 사라지고, 마음에 없는 결혼생활을 시작했고, ○○씨 한번만 보고 싶어요. 우도에 갔을 때 전화를 할려고해도 양심상 ○○씨를 버리는 ○아의 마음이 너무 쓰리고 아파서 전화를 할 수가 없었어요. 연심이한테 ○○씨 안부는 물어보았어요, 방학이라서 서울 고향으로 상경했다고 하더군요. 학생들 열심히 가르쳐 주세요. 부탁이예요",라는 내용과 그 밖에 몇몇 남자들의 이름이 기재된 낙서 1매를 발견하고 위 피청구인이 청구인과는 혼인생활을 계속할 의사가 없음을 알아차리고 이건 심판청구에 이르게 된 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 이에 저촉되는 증인 고태송, 고태여의 각 일부증언은 믿지 아니하고 달리 위 인정을 좌우할 증거가 없다.

According to the above facts of recognition, a de facto marital relationship between the above parties has become no longer difficult to continue, and the cause of the failure has been resolved by the delivery of the claimant's objection theory. Although the period of time is shorter, the respondent has neglected his/her duty to live with the claimant as his/her wife, even if he/she did not have any duty to live with the claimant, and even did an act of undermining the husband's trust, such as leaving a written abortion, going against his/her duty to make it doubtful about the past. Therefore, the above respondent is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the claimant as a party liable for the failure of de facto marital relationship.

(2) Compensation for weddings and marriage expenses

Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence 9-1 to 3 (each simplified tax invoice) which is recognized to have been established by the testimony of the witness Park Jong-hun, and the purport of the deliberation on the testimony of the above witness and witness Park Jong-1 to 20, the claimant may recognize the fact that he has paid 1,476,200 won to the new father with the marriage type 1 to 60,000 as stated in the separate list 1 to 60,000,000 won under each of the above list 2 to 60,000,000 won and less than 60,000 won and less than 1 to 60,000 won and less than 1 to 60,000 won and less than 1 to 60,000 won and less than 1 to 60,000 won and less than 1 to 60,000 won and less than 7,000 won and less than 1 to 60,07,0,000.

An appellant has delivered 920,000 won of precious metal to the appellee 1 as a wedding, and the amount of 280,000 won of the new father and mother, the value of 280,000 won of the clothes of this mother among the weddings listed in the attached Table 1, and the value of the new wedding clothes is 643,00 won, and 105,000 won of cash in the white book, 80,000 won of the new book-based cash, 180,000 won of the new book-based funeral expenses, 180,000 won of the old book-based funeral expenses, and 21,000 won of the old book-based funeral expenses, but the claimant has already received the return of the aforementioned precious metal metal amounting to 920,000 won, and there is no evidence to support the remainder of the assertion other than the testimony of the above witnesses who do not believe by a party member.

(3) Consolation money

According to the above facts of recognition, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the appellant suffered enormous mental pain due to the failure of de facto marriage between the appellant and the respondent due to the cause attributable to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is obligated to pay it in money. In light of all circumstances, such as the age, family relationship, living level of the claimant and the respondent, the period of de facto marriage and the situation of failure, etc., which are shown in the hearing of this case, the respondent should pay 2,00,000 won to the claimant as consolation money.

B. Claim against the respondent 2

The claimant asserts that the respondent 2 is the father of the respondent 1, who is the respondent, and the respondent was aware of the fact that he was living together with another male before the marriage, but the respondent was living together with the other male before the marriage, but was married once again, the claimant has to make efforts to reach a normal marital life. However, since the above marriage has been settled, the respondent and the claimant are jointly responsible for compensating for damages caused by the above de facto marriage, it is argued that the respondent and the claimant are jointly responsible for compensating for damages caused by the above de facto marriage. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently except for the testimony of strong witness, spatition, and spatition, which is not believed by the party member.

2. Determination on the anti-trial claim

청구인과 피심판청구인 1사이에 사실혼관계에 있다가 현재 파탄에 이르게 된 사실은 위에서 인정한 바와 같은 바, 피심판청구인 1은 반심청구로서 위 당사자 사이의 사실혼관계가 파탄에 이르게 된 것은 청구인이 원래부터 여성에 대한 심한 열등의식을 갖고 있는 터에 성불구로서 첫선 보던날부터 위 피청구인이 말을 건네지 않는 한 먼저 말을 시작하지 않았고, 부곡온천으로 신혼여행을 가서도 첫날밤부터 위 피청구인에게 몸을 요구하지 않았으며 제주도에 가서도 위 피청구인이 유혹하였는데도 이에 불응하였고 부산 청학동에 방을 얻고 잠자리에 들어서도 위 피청구인은 다시 청구인을 유혹하여 청구인이 옷을 벗으라기에 옷을 벗고 있으니 청구인이 마치 매춘부에게 하듯이 준비됐느냐고 말하므로 기분이 상해 말다툼이 되었고 청구인은 폭행할 태도를 보여 이에 겁을 먹은 위 피청구인이 내몸에 손을 대면 칼로 찔러 버리 겠다고 말하자 청구인은 피청구인에게 나가라고 강요하므로 옆집에 가서 하룻밤을 지내고 돌아오니 청구인이 이미 가출하였는데 그후 청구인은 위 피청구인이 청구인을 자극시킬 목적으로 몇자 적어놓은 낙서를 빙자하여 마치 피청구인이 과거에 있는 여인인 양 몰아치며 사실혼관계의 해소를 고지해 온 바 있었으므로 위 당사자 사이의 사실혼이 파탄에 이르게 된 것은 오로지 청구인측의 책임있는 사유에 기인한 것으로서 별지 제3목록 기재와 같이 금 4,635,000원 상당의 결혼비용을 소비하였는데 청구인이 위 피청구인에게 교부한 별지 제4목록 기재의 예물 및 현금 중 현존이익금 1,208,000원을 공제한 금 3,427,000원 상당의 손해금과 위자료 금 4,000,000원 합계금 7,427,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 먼저 위 당사자 사이의 사실혼관계가 파탄된 원인이 청구인의 책임있는 사유에 기인한다는 주장사실에 들어맞는 증인 강연심, 박명훈의 각 증언은 믿지 아니하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로 위 피청구인의 주장은 나머지 사실에 나아가 판단할 필요없이 이유없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the respondent 1 is obligated to pay the claimant damages of KRW 1,246,200 and solatium 2,00,000 in total, KRW 3,246,200 ( KRW 1,200 + 2,000 + 2,000) and damages for delay according to the rate of 5% per annum from March 22, 1987 to December 11 of the same year, which is the day following the delivery date of the written appeal of this case, as the claimant seeks, at the rate of KRW 1,246,200,00 in total, and KRW 3,246,200 in total, and KRW 1,200 in total, and at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date of the written appeal of this case, the respondent is obligated to pay damages for delay according to the rate of 9% per annum 1,200 per annum of the above written appeal of this case, and the respondent's remaining damages for the appeal of this case shall be dismissed within 12.

Administrative patent judges, yellow rains (Presiding administrative patent judges) and vice versa.