Costs of appeal shall be borne by the claimant.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked, and the proceedings of the parties to the lawsuit shall be permitted.

According to the records, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed a marriage report with the non-party 2 on September 30, 1969 and led to the litigant. However, the divorce judgment was finalized on June 10, 1994 between the deceased and the non-party 2. After that, the deceased and the claimant transferred the deceased’s domicile to the claimant’s address on July 20, 2001, and were actually living together and living as the married couple on May 14, 2002.

B. Around 7:00 a.m. on March 12, 2007, the Deceased Dominton lost his own consciousness, and was transferred to the National Police Emergency Hospital. On April 16, 2007, the litigant transferred the Deceased to the Love Care Hospital. However, on May 10, 2007, the Deceased did not recover consciousness and died on May 10, 2007.

C. On the other hand, on April 18, 2007, the claimant received the instant written appeal with the Seoul Family Court, but the instant written appeal was unable to be served on the deceased due to the absence of closure, and the above court ordered the claimant to correct his address on May 14, 2007, and the claimant received the written application for the extension of the deadline for correction on May 30, 2007 and received the written application for the extension of the deadline for correction on June 8, 2007.

2. The parties' assertion

(a) An appellant;

From the perspective of de facto marital protection, a de facto marital relationship between the claimant and the deceased was terminated by expressing the claimant’s intention to resolve a de facto marital relationship with the instant appeal, and at the same time, the claimant’s claim for division of property has been made. Therefore, the request for continuation of the instant lawsuit should be permitted in order to exercise the claim for continuing division of property against the litigant’

(b) Other party;

Since the claimant continued a common life with the deceased until the time of the appeal in this case, the de facto marital relationship cannot be resolved only by the claimant's unilateral declaration of intention, and even if the de facto marital relationship is terminated by the death of one party, treating it by the division of property system, which is not the inheritance system, would be prejudicial to the foundation of the current legal system.

3. Determination

A. As acknowledged earlier, one of the parties to a de facto marital relationship, where the deceased, who is a party to the de facto marital relationship, was missing in a situation where the consciousness of the deceased is unknown and the other claimant, who was an unknown period, declared his/her intention to resolve the de facto marital relationship, but died without restoring his/her awareness after being unable to receive such a declaration, the de facto marital relationship shall not be terminated by the claimant’s declaration of intention, but shall be deemed terminated by the deceased’s death. Thus, the claimant cannot be deemed to have the right

B. Where a de facto marriage relationship is terminated due to the death of one party, it is problematic in terms of the protection of de facto marriage, but it is due to our legal system that does not include a de facto marriage spouse in an inheritor, and it is inevitable to interpret it as an interpretation theory, separate from the legislation theory.

C. Therefore, the instant claim for division of property should be deemed to have lost the benefit to maintain the claim upon the death of the party.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court that dismissed the claimant's request for taking over a lawsuit is justifiable, and the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Landscaping Co., Ltd. (Presiding Judge)