[사실상혼인관계존부확인] 항소[각공2018상,134]
In a case where: (a) A was a legally married couple who completed the report of marriage with B; (b) was living together with B; (c) was married with the legally married couple or emotional couple who completed the report of marriage with C; and (d) was living together with A after two contacts; (b) A died of an accident in the workplace; and (c) sought confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship between B and B, the case holding that: (a) the existence of a de facto marital relationship between A and C from the date on which the consultation with B was married to the date on which A died; and (b) C was admitted to have
The case holding that, in a case where Gap was found to have been in a de facto marital relationship between Byung and Byung as Byung died due to an accident that occurred in the workplace and Byung sought confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship between Byung and Eul, the case holding that Byung did not have a de facto marital relationship between Byung and Byung, but it cannot be deemed that there was a mutual agreement between Eul and Eul, or that there was a de facto marital relationship between Gap and Byung was terminated until Eul was married with Eul, and Byung did not have a de facto marital relationship, and Byung did not have a de facto marital relationship between Byung and Byung, even though Byung was recognized as having been in a de facto marital relationship between Byung and Byung, and Byung did not have a de facto marital relationship between Byung and Byung, since Eul was in a marital relationship after Byung and his marital relationship were married with Eul, and Byung did not have a de facto marital relationship until the de facto marital relationship had been protected until the date of the de facto marital relationship between Byung and Byung was in a de facto marital relationship.
Articles 810 and 812 of the Civil Act; Article 2(1)1(b) of the Family Litigation Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutor
The Intervenor joining the Defendant (Law Firm Jae-ju, Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
October 27, 2017
1. The Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty 1 [resident registration number 1 omitted] confirm that de facto marital relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty 1 (resident registration number 1 omitted, and Gyeongan-gun (resident address 1 omitted)] between December 16, 2015 and September 29, 2016.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the supplementary intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by each party.
The plaintiff and the deceased non-party 1 [resident registration number 1 omitted] confirm that a de facto marital relationship exists between 2010 and 29 September 2016 between the plaintiff and the deceased non-party 1 (resident registration number 1 omitted, and address 1 omitted).
1. Basic facts
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 22, Eul's evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
A. On October 8, 198, Nonparty 1, on the part of Nonparty 2 (resident registration number 2 omitted) and the legal couple who completed the marriage report, had two married children, including the Intervenor joining the Defendant, but completed the report of divorce as of December 16, 2015.
B. On June 12, 1985, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3 (resident registration number 3 omitted) were legally married couple who completed the marriage report and had one female male and female. However, around 190, Nonparty 3 went out to contact with Nonparty 3 and brought up the said children by leaving home and leaving contact. On November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 3 on a divorce claim against Nonparty 2, 201152 of the Busan Family Court, and confirmed on March 22, 2017, by rendering a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3 are divorced.”
C. On September 29, 2016, a deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) died due to an accident where the deceased Non-party 1 met with the latter in the workplace (○○○ Industries Co., Ltd.) traveling on September 29, 2016.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff asserts that the deceased who was in a de facto marital state with Nonparty 2 and the deceased from around 2010 to September 29, 2016 were in a de facto marital relationship, and sought confirmation of the existence of a de facto de facto marital relationship during the said period.
3. Determination
A. In order for a de facto marriage to be established, there is a subjective agreement between the parties to the marriage and there is an objective marital life to be objectively recognized as a marital life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4942, Jan. 30, 2001), and considering our family law system under which the principle of legal divorce and the principle of prohibition of middle marriage is Daejeon, the de facto marital relationship should not be in violation of good morals and other social order. Therefore, the de facto marital relationship where legal marriage competes, in principle, shall not be protected. However, even if a de facto marital relationship is a de facto marital relationship, protection corresponding to legal divorce is necessary, and even if the de facto marital relationship is a de facto marital relationship, if the legal marriage is dissolved later, it shall be deemed that legal protection can be protected as in the same way as other de facto marriage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da641630, Dec. 24, 2009).
B. First, according to the facts of the deceased’s legal confusion, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Gap evidence Nos. 7, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 13, Gap evidence Nos. 16 through 18, Gap evidence No. 25, Gap evidence Nos. 28, Gap evidence Nos. 30, and the testimony of non-party Nos. 31 (including each serial number in the case of the non-party No. 2 and non-party Nos. 4), the deceased was employed in a dormitory located in △△△△ in around 2010, while the deceased was married with non-party Nos. 2 and 9, the deceased was found to have been unable to be found to have been employed by the plaintiff’s family members at his own expense or to have been issued to the plaintiff on Aug. 21, 2010 (hereinafter “the non-party No. 2”). The plaintiff’s legal relations with the deceased’s own accommodation with the plaintiff’s non-party No. 1 and the plaintiff’s family members were found to have been divorced.
C. Therefore, a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased shall not be deemed a de facto marital relationship with the deceased for the period of December 16, 2015, in which the deceased had a divorce with Nonparty 2, and thus, it does not constitute a de facto marital relationship legally protected. However, it is recognized that the de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased existed from December 16, 2015 to September 29, 2016, where there is a dispute with the Defendant’s Intervenor, etc. regarding compensation for survivors, etc. caused by the death of the deceased, the benefit of confirmation shall also be recognized.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and part of it is accepted, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-soo