1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the respective “C” of the first,6, and the first, the second, and fourth, following the second, third, and fourth, of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the Plaintiff’s assertion, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the circumstances that at the time of the deceased’s retirement, the Plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased, as well as that of the legal divorce between the deceased and H at the time, and that the legal divorce was the same as that of the deceased, the Plaintiff and the deceased had been divorced by law, following the fact that the Plaintiff and the deceased had resident registration at the same domicile (Fcheon-si, Gcheon-si, Icheon-si, Icheon-si, Icheon-si, Icheon-si, Icheon-si) from March 4, 1989 to August 28, 2011, and the Plaintiff gave birth to D, E, a child between the deceased and the deceased in 1980 and 1982, and H had been managed by the Plaintiff and the deceased, and H did not raise an objection against the Plaintiff’s communal living with two children.

However, on the ground that the above circumstances exist, the possibility that H had refused divorce as at the time of the deceased’s retirement to restore the marital life between the deceased and the deceased was not excluded. Therefore, in the instant case where it is impossible to confirm the specific intent of H, the above circumstances alone cannot be readily concluded that the legal divorce between the deceased and H exists only formally and that there was legal divorce.

Rather, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as to the head of Seocho 3 Dong of this court, H and the deceased, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, H and the deceased are children of Maok-si Lcheon-si in the same domicile from December 18, 1971 to March 3, 1989.