2018ddan6545 Damage ( de facto marriage destruction)

2018ddan6552(Consolidated) Damages ( de facto marriage destruction)

A

1. B

2. Sick:

4, 2020.20

on March 10, 2020

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. 2. Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is jointly sent to the plaintiff 50 million won and a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff 50 million won.

Defendant B shall pay 15% interest per annum from the day following the month to the day of full payment.

The amount of 26 million won in the division of property and the interest thereon shall be from the day after the day when this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

5 Payment of the amount calculated at the rate of 5 per cent.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

From July 2015, Plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship with Defendant B, living together with the Plaintiff’s domicile, and was in a de facto marital relationship. However, on December 24, 2017, when Defendant B was frequently engaged in sexual intercourse with Defendant C on December 24, 2017, the de facto marital relationship was broken down by entering into an improper relationship with Defendant C on December 24, 2017. Therefore, Defendant B should return to Plaintiff 50 million won as consolation money due to an improper de facto marriage and its delay damages, and Defendant B should return KRW 26 million as the price for the passenger car disposed of voluntarily through the division of property.

In this regard, the defendant argued that he associates with the plaintiff and his house, and that he did not have a de facto marital relationship, although he did not have a de facto marital relationship.

2. Determination

A. Recognizing that Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 2 were unable to engage in singing and selling 7 around July 7, 2015. From around 00 to around 6, Defendant 2 had a sense of view after first coming to their customers. Meanwhile, Defendant 2 had a conflict with his former spouse, which led to a separate lawsuit (this Court Decision 2015D 13030) such as divorce against Defendant 2, the said court was divorced from the former spouse on April 19, 2017, and the marital relationship between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 was established on the premise that Plaintiff 2 was responsible for sing and selling singing down singing and selling singing down singing and selling singing and selling singing down singing and selling singing and selling sing and drinking singing the Plaintiff’s ss sing and drinking ssss.

7) On December 2017, Defendant B came to know of Defendant C’s disease at a meeting of the alpine Society on the Habn of December 2017, and the Defendant C with a head of hosium.

8) From around 2015, the Plaintiff filed several complaints with Defendant B from around 2015, due to property damage, theft, intimidation, injury, embezzlement, etc., and the Prosecutor dismissed or rendered a non-prosecution decision (no suspicion) on each of the above complaints. Defendant B also filed several complaints against the Plaintiff due to the violation of the Act on the Damage of Property, Refusal to Leave and Residential Intrusion, Fraud, Use of Information and Communications Network, and Protection of Information, etc., and the Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment due to the damage of property, refusal to leave, housing invasion, and fraud. In addition, the Plaintiff filed several proposals against Defendant B, and is currently underway.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 8, all or part of these evidence or images, family affairs investigation report by family affairs investigator, and purpose of the pleading before oral argument

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

De facto marriage refers to a marital relationship between men and women who are not recognized as a legally married couple in the text of the fact that the parties have the intention to marry between themselves and are objectively in terms of the social order. However, a de facto marriage refers to the combination of men and women who are not recognized as a legally married couple in the text of the fact that they did not report their marital status. Therefore, it is insufficient solely for the circumstance that the parties have a simple marital relationship or a sporadic marital relationship in order to be protected as a matter of law by means of a de facto marriage. There is a subjective agreement between the parties, and objectively, there is a substance of marital life that can be recognized as a marital life in the form of a family order in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Meu1584, Mar. 28, 1995).

In light of the above legal principles as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff and Defendant B living together with the Plaintiff’s father in the Plaintiff’s residence for a given period of time, the Plaintiff and Defendant B, including the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s children, met with each other’s family members, come to and come to know, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B opened the sidewalk with the Defendant’s mother’s aid.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts are as follows: ① the Plaintiff and Defendant B first met with singing the other male at the time; ② the Plaintiff and Defendant B met with the other male at the time; ② the Plaintiff and Defendant B did not begin living together with them; and Defendant B repeated her home at the time of marriage; ③ the Plaintiff and Defendant B did not report marriage even though they did not have special circumstances; ③ the Plaintiff and Defendant B did not report marriage; and there was no specific plan for marriage or marriage report in the future; the Plaintiff did not appear to have attended the marriage system with the family members of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and did not have any other economic relation with the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff and Defendant B attended the religious system and the funeral procedure, and it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff did not have any other relation with the Plaintiff, as a matter of social norms, with the evidence presented to the Plaintiff and his family members, and the Plaintiff did not have any other relation with the Plaintiff, as a matter of social norms.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for consolation money against the Defendants on the premise of the establishment and resolution of de facto marriage and the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property against Defendant B is without merit without any need to further examine (it is alleged that the Plaintiff disposed of and consumed the motor vehicle received from the former spouse as Defendant B, but the Plaintiff’s business opening the sidewalk and using the proceeds of the sale was earlier, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s claim).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges already appointed