1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

D, around October 12, 2013, which served as a daily worker from the motive and construction of the instant disposition, died on the same day as the floor, which was crashed on the same day while it was engaged in the work to replace with the roof flag of the living room of the Army unit located in the Gyeong-gun of Gyeonggi-do.

(hereinafter referred to as “D.” At the time of death, the Deceased was living together with the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the Intervenor”), but the Intervenor was living together with F, G, and H under the chain of legal confusion with the Intervenor before living with the Deceased.

The Deceased did not report a marriage, all his parents died, and his sibling was alive, there is the Plaintiff A, who is a sibling, and a woman with the Plaintiff B.

On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiffs, a legal heir of the deceased, asserted that they died of an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family benefits to the Defendant. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family benefit site payment to the Plaintiffs on the ground that “it is necessary to make a court’s decision on whether a de facto marital relationship between the deceased and the Intervenor exists.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case’s disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] A] without dispute, and the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including numbers) as a whole and the purport of the entire pleadings. The plaintiffs’ assertion as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case’s disposition was legitimate, while living together with the deceased, did not resolve the marriage with E who is a spouse of legal marriage, and there was no fact that the deceased introduced the Intervenor to his family members. Thus, the deceased and the intervenor were merely living together without the genuine intention of marriage.

Therefore, the intervenor is not a de facto spouse of the deceased and thus cannot be a beneficiary of bereaved family benefits of the deceased. Therefore, the disposition of this case should be revoked.

Judgment

It is examined as to whether the deceased and the intervenor were in a de facto marital relationship at the time of death.

㈎ 사실혼이란 당사자 사이에 혼인의 의사가 있고 객관적으로 사회관념상...