2019dern202456 Compensation, etc. due to de facto marriage disputes

A

Section B.

July 9, 2019

August 13, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won as consolation money and 5 million won with 5% per annum from March 7, 2019 to August 13, 2019, and 12% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000 won as division of property and 2.5 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

4. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining two-thirds by the defendant.

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60 million won as consolation money, 5% per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the correction of the claim of this case until the day of this judgment, and 12% per annum from the day following the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 70 million won as division of property, and 5% per annum from the day following the day of this decision to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2010, the Plaintiff joined with the Defendant. On June 2, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) liveded with the Defendant at the room in which the Defendant was living; (b) filed a petition for marriage on July 23, 2018, when the Defendant was living in the room in which he was living; (c) but (d) did not file a report on marriage among them.

B. The Defendant, who is a △△△△△△△, had previously been aware of the post-rating test, and had a △△△△△ relationship with the Defendant on October 2018, 2018, such as: (a) he/she had a hosium, and (b) had a lusium, and (c) had a lusium and gender relationship.

C. C. On January 23, 2019, C. who considered the Defendant as unmarried, confirmed the Plaintiff’s photograph through the Defendant’s SNS, and followed the Defendant’s objection, but the Defendant told the Plaintiff of the fact that he was married to the Plaintiff on January 23, 2019.

D. On January 24, 2019, the Plaintiff, who had a big shock and heart due to C’s contact, was denied that he did not have a relation with the Defendant, but did not have a relation with the Defendant, such as having a sexual intercourse. On January 24, 2019, the Plaintiff confirmed all facts, such as a sexual intercourse with the Defendant and C. The Plaintiff was at the time when the Defendant, who caused the misunderstanding, went to the Defendant, and was at the time of the Defendant’s marcing. After that, the Defendant was set off due to the said assault, and the Defendant sent the CCTV screen to the Plaintiff at the time when the Plaintiff turns to the marc.

마 . 원고는 피고의 휴대전화를 확인한 결과 , 피고가 많은 여자들을 ' ㄱ ' , ' ㄱㄱ ' , ' ㄱㄱ ㄱ ' 등으로 저장해두었을 뿐만 아니라 , 특히 ' □□□ ' 라는 이름으로 저장해 둔 여성과는 지속적으로 연락하며 ' 예쁘다 , 술 마시자 ' 는 등의 메시지를 보낸 것을 확인하였다 .

F. On January 25, 2018, the Defendant sent a letter stating that the Defendant would have to know that the Defendant would bring about the Defendant’s intentional act on or around February 7, 2019, and that if the Defendant would not set the electric power over the Heget, the Defendant would have to know that the Plaintiff would claim for management expenses and the interest on the deposit. However, the Plaintiff refused this, but on February 12, 2019, requested the Plaintiff to find the apartment of this case and go to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s parent, who was under contact with the Plaintiff at the time, went to the police on this day, and went to the police.

G. The Defendant, in the instant case, changed the password of the apartment of this case, and prevented the Plaintiff from entering the said apartment. The Plaintiff opened the door, opened the door, and difficulty in taking out personal goods, such as clothes. On April 2, 2018, the Defendant did not enter the Plaintiff’s residence and reporting to the police any more defective matters.

H. The plaintiff was under serious shock during a series of processes and has been receiving mental treatment up to now. [Grounds for recognition] Each description or image of evidence A1 to 7 (including Serials) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the claim of consolation money

1) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has reached a failure to the extent that it would no longer be recovered due to the occurrence of dispute and the occurrence of disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s parents.

2) Furthermore, as recognized earlier, the Defendant destroyed the basic trust in the marital relationship, such as the Defendant, even after the marriage with the Plaintiff, was active as if he were unmarried, and she committed illness or misappropriation. After the occurrence of the father’s act, the Defendant was more aware of the father’s act, but rather treated the Plaintiff by unreasonable treatment, such as taking the Plaintiff’s responsibility, preventing entry into the new marriage, and thus, is fundamental and principal responsibility for the failure of the marital relationship between the husband and the wife.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the wrongful reversal of a de facto marital relationship (the Defendant asserts that the de facto marital relationship of this case was broken down due to the reason that the Defendant did not consider the Defendant as his spouse, such as the Plaintiff’s objection and violence, but the materials submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize the de facto marital relationship. Therefore, this part of the allegation is rejected).

3) Amount of consolation money

It is reasonable to determine the amount of KRW 25 million based on the following circumstances: (a) the de facto marriage period in this case; (b) the background, period, and degree of the Defendant’s misconduct; (c) the influence of the said misconduct on the de facto marriage relationship in this case; and (d) the filing of the instant lawsuit, including after the discovery of fraudulent misconduct; and (c) the attitude that the Defendant and his family members look at to the Plaintiff.

4) Sub-decisions

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 7, 2019 to August 13, 2019, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day when the Defendant rendered a significant decision on the scope of its performance obligations, and 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. Determination on the claim for division of property

(i) the property and value to be divided;

It is reasonable to view only the claim for the return of the lease deposit under the name of the defendant prepared by mutual efforts during the period of de facto marriage by the plaintiff and the defendant as property subject to division of property.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the lease contract of the apartment in this case was only the defendant's unique property and not the property subject to division since it was created by the defendant. However, the lease contract of the apartment in this case was concluded on July 23, 2018 during the de facto marriage period. The lease deposit was created at KRW 30 million borne by the plaintiff and KRW 180 million borne by the defendant, and the plaintiff was not only prepared for the marriage by raising considerable funds in the marriage process, but also participated in the process of the company's marriage with the defendant, and it was also decided that the plaintiff contributed to the formation of the above lease claim and the maintenance of the above lease claim during the de facto marriage period, and thus, it should be considered that the plaintiff contributed to the division of the lease deposit in this case and prevented the decrease thereof. Thus, it should be considered that the plaintiff's property division claim should be considered as the property subject to division.

2) Ratio and method of division of property

A) Division ratio: Plaintiff 25%, Defendant 75%

[Ground of determination] The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division (in particular, the apportionment ratio of the claim for return of the lease deposit in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s creation of a new marriage with considerable expenses). Other circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the de facto marriage process of this case and the circumstances leading up to the failure, the period, and the Plaintiff’s intentional age and occupation, are considered.

B) Method of division of property

The property in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, taking into account various circumstances and convenience in division, such as the name and form of the property subject to division, the process of acquisition and maintenance, etc., and the convenience in division, shall be considered: (a) the property in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be reverted to the current name; (b) the part of the amount ultimately reverted to the Plaintiff according to the said division ratio, which falls short

C) Property division amount that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff

○ The Plaintiff’s share according to the division of property among the net property of the Plaintiff and Defendant

5,250,000 won (the division ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s net property of KRW 21 billion and KRW X Plaintiff of KRW 0,000,000)

○ Division of Property that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff

above 5,250 million won

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 50,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day after the judgment became final to the day after full payment is made.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining Cheong-gu is dismissed as there is no ground. It is so decided as per Disposition with regard to the claim for division of property as above.

Judges already appointed