(b) Whether a party in a de facto marital relationship may request a prosecutor to confirm whether he/she exists in a de facto marital relationship where one party dies;

B. Even if one of the parties who was in a de facto marital relationship dies, as long as it can be an appropriate means to resolve the present or potential legal dispute in a valid way, the benefit of confirmation is recognized. In such a case, the provisions of Article 865 of the Civil Act and Article 863 of the Civil Act on the claim for confirmation of denial of paternity should be applied mutatis mutandis, so that the surviving party may request the prosecutor to confirm the existence of a de facto marital relationship within one year from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the death.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

The court below rejected the above defense on the ground that the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party deceased is unlawful as seeking confirmation of facts in the past, and that the lawsuit of this case must be dismissed as the defendant because there is no explicit provision that the prosecutor may be the party to the lawsuit of this case, even if not, since it does not have any explicit provision that the lawsuit of this case may be the party to the lawsuit of this case, the claim for confirmation of de facto marital relationship has a legal interest to immediately confirm the status relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased in order to eliminate legal uncertainty surrounding the entitlement to bereaved family benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in this case as a confirmation of past facts, not just a confirmation of past facts, and that the claim should be applied by analogy to Article 865 of the Civil Act

Furthermore, the court below determined that the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship with the above non-party deceased is justifiable, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissed the lawsuit of this case and accepted the plaintiff's claim by revoking the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the lawsuit of this case.

2. We examine the first ground for appeal.

In general, the past legal relations cannot be subject to legal action for confirmation. However, in a case where multiple legal relations are generated on the premise of fact, such as marriage, adoption, establishment of a company, establishment of an association such as invalidity and cancellation of a resolution at a general meeting of shareholders, and administrative relations such as administrative disposition, and where it can be an appropriate means to resolve a dispute related to the past legal relations itself, rather than repeating the procedure for seeking confirmation on a daily basis, it is recognized as an exceptional benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 78Meu7, Jul. 11, 1978).

However, a de facto marriage spouse is treated with special legal treatment despite the fact that he is not a legal spouse, such as Article 3(3) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 4 subparag. 3 of the amended Act), Article 3(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 29 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Seafarers’ Act, Article 61(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Article 3(1)4 of the Military Pension Act, Article 5(1)1 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to Independence, etc.

Accordingly, de facto marriage is a premise of several legal relations, and the claim for confirmation of its existence can be an appropriate means to resolve disputes related to the legal relations in a single way.

Therefore, even if one of the parties who was in a de facto marital relationship as seen in this case died, as long as it can be a valid and appropriate means to resolve the present or potential legal dispute, the benefit of confirmation is recognized. In such a case, by applying Article 865 of the Civil Act and Article 863 of the Civil Act on the claim for confirmation of denial of paternity in applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 865 of the Civil Act on the claim for confirmation of existence of paternity, the surviving party can request the prosecutor to confirm the existence of a de facto marital relationship within one year from the date of becoming aware of such death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu76, Mar. 8, 1983; 94Meu321, Jun. 28, 1994).

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject matter of the claim for confirmation and the eligibility of the party in the disposition of the court below that the lawsuit of this case is lawful. There is no reason

3. We examine the second ground for appeal.

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below after comparing it with the records, the court below is justified in finding the fact that there was a substance of marital life between the plaintiff and the non-party deceased, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment below, or in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence. There is no reason to argue.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)