[손해배상등청구사건][고집1982(특별편),254]
Cases not of de facto marital relationship;
As long as an appellant knew that he/she has a legal spouse with the appellee, his/her living relationship with the appellee cannot be seen as a so-called overlapping relationship that is contrary to social order and a de facto marriage that is legally protected.
Articles 103 and 812(1) of the Civil Act
A
B
Seoul Family Court (81div4724)
The appellant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the claimant.
The original adjudication shall be revoked.
The respondent shall pay 15,00,000 won to the claimant and 25 percent interest per annum from June 18, 1981 to the full payment system.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution.
The claimant is the cause of the claim in this case. The claimant may be married to the defendant and his wife on January 23, 197, while living together with the defendant on January 23, 1977. The claimant knew that the defendant had his wife on April 11, 1978. The claimant knew that he had his wife, and asked the defendant to go into the defendant, and the defendant did not go through the mistake, and the defendant did not leave the place, and the defendant did so, and the defendant did not go to the defendant and his wife on October 17, 1980. Since the claimant knew that he would die after being married to the defendant on June 1, 1981, the claimant has the obligation to pay consolation money to the defendant and his wife on June 1, 1981, he tried to take part in the defendant's death after being married to the defendant, and therefore, the claimant has a de facto marital relation with the defendant without any mental change. The claimant's intention to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.
Therefore, if the statement of No. 5 (No. 5) without dispute in the establishment and the testimony of the court below C, D and E are combined with each of the testimony of the witnesses C, and witnesses E (except for the part which is not believed later) on January 23, 1977, the claimant and the respondent may recognize the fact that the defendant raised one male and female under the chain while living together with the married life on January 23, 197. However, if the above statement of No. 5 and the original trial witness F and G testimony are combined with the purport of oral argument, the respondent has completed the marriage report on January 29, 1962 and delivered one male and female between them, and the defendant had already been in legal status from the time when living together with the petitioner and the respondent began, and if the defendant knew that some of the applicants and the respondent were living together with the above defendant and they did not have been aware of the fact that there was a marital relation between H and the defendant, the defendant and the defendant did not have been aware of the above fact that they were living together with the above defendant and the defendant.
Therefore, as long as the appellant was aware that he had a legal spouse with the respondent, the living relationship between the appellant and the respondent is merely an overlapping relationship that is contrary to social order and cannot be deemed a de facto marriage that is legally protected. Thus, the claim of this case under the premise that the defendant has a de facto marital relationship with the respondent is no longer necessary to enter and examine it, and the judgment of the court below is just as the conclusion is delivered, and the appellant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the appeal cost is assessed against the losing appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Yoon-tae (Presiding Judge)