(a) A register of requests for designation of the exerciser of parental authority over an unknown person;

(b) Whether a claim for bringing up against a person not recognized in the case of de facto marriage is appropriate; and

A. If a person, other than a marriage, is not recognized by the biological father, that person is subject to the sole parental authority of the mother, and thus, the claim for designation of the exercise of parental authority based on the joint parental authority is unlawful.

B. In the case of de facto marriage, a claim for bringing up against a person who is not recognized is unlawful as there is no ground provision.

Article 909(4) of the Civil Act; Article 2(1)5 of the Family Litigation Act; Articles 837 and 843 of the Civil Act; Article 2(1)3 of the Family Litigation Act; Article 2(2)3 of the Family Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Principal of the case

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the designation of the person exercising parental authority over the instant principal, and the designation of the person fostering, and all of the lawsuits demanding payment of child support shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with the annual interest rate of 5 percent from November 4, 1993 to May 20, 1994, and the annual interest rate of 25 percent from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 25,00,000 won as division of property and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

5. Ten minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

6. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 220 million won and the amount of 5 percent per annum from the day following the service day of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the day of the full payment, and the amount of 100 million won as a division of property and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the day of the final decision of division of property.

The defendant shall designate the plaintiff as the exerciseer and care holder of the principal of this case, and the defendant shall pay 500,000 won to the plaintiff as of the last day of each month from the day following the ruling of this case until the principal of this case reaches 20 years of age.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim of consolation money

A. Factual relations

갑 제1 내지 3호증, 갑 제6호증, 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 7, 갑 제8호증, 을 제2호증, 을 제12호증의 각 기재 및 영상과 증인의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고(1962.1.10.생)는 1983년경 부친의 사업실패로 부산대학교 음악학과(성악 전공) 3학년을 중퇴하고 이후 몇 년 간 음악학원에서 강사로 종사하다가 1989년경 특허관련제품 개발업체인 "한국아이디어뱅크"라는 사업체(부산 소재)의 이사로 재직하게 된 사실, 1990.5.경 원고는 서울 하얏트 호텔 커피숍 에서 평소 안면이 있던 소외 1이라는 재미교포를 사업관계로 만나 그 자리에서 동인을 동행한 피고(1953.12.22.생)를 처음으로 소개받아 알게 되었는데 당시 피고는 자신을 사업(무역업)을 하는 총각으로서 서울대학교 경영학과 출신이라고 소개한 사실, 그 후 피고는 수시로 원고에게 전화를 걸어 호의를 표시해와 미혼인 원고로서도 피고에게 호감을 가지게 되었고 몇 차례 만나던 중 1990.6. 피고가 투숙한 부산 동래소재 호텔방에서 피고로부터 청혼을 받은 가운데 반강제적으로 첫 성관계를 가진 사실, 그 후 1990.6.25.경 원고는 소외 1로부터 피고가 이혼경력이 있으며 전처 소생의 남매가 있다는 이야기를 듣고 몹시 놀랐으나 그때는 이미 피고의 아이를 임신한데다가 피고가 잘 해주겠다고 약속하므로 이를 믿어 피고와의 결혼을 받아들이기로 하고 친정부모에게는 이러한 사실을 숨긴 채 1990.11.28. 서울에서 양가친척들이 모인 가운데 결혼식을 올린 사실, 결혼식 후 원고와 피고는 피고의 주거지에서 신혼생활에 들어갔는데 피고는 이혼전력이 나타난 자신의 호적을 깨끗이 정리한 다음 혼인신고를 해주겠다고 하면서 원고와의 혼인신고를 차일피일 미룬 사실, 또한 피고는 혼전 약속과는 달리 1991.1. 결혼 후 처음 맞는 설명절에 원고를 떼어놓고 혼자만 전처 소생자들을 데리고 시가에 다녀오는 등 원고를 구박하기 시작한 사실, 1991.4. 사건본인의 출산일이 다가오자 피고는 갑자기 미국에서 사건본인을 낳아야 한다면서 원고를 미국으로 데리고 가서는 원고가 같은 해 4.30. 사건본인을 출산한 후 먼저 귀국하고 국제전화로 귀국을 원하는 원고에게는 돌아오지 말라고 고함을 쳐 원고를 서운하게 만든 사실, 1991.11. 원고는 시누이집에 있던 피고의 전처 소생 남매를 집으로 데리고 와 사건본인과 함께 키우게 되었는데 원고로서는 위 남매에게 최선을 다하려고 노력하였음에 불구하고 피고는 사사건건 트집을 잡아 원고를 불안에 떨게 하고 불화를 야기한 사실, 피고는 이유 없이 원고를 의심하여 잠깐이라도 말없이 외출하였다가 들어오면 "젊은 놈 만나고 왔느냐"며 강제로 옷을 벗겨 온몸을 구석구석 뒤져보고 1992.4.경 별지목록 기재 부동산을 증축할 때는 원고가 건축업자와 웃으면서 얘기한 것을 가지고 건축업자를 유혹하여 나쁜 짓을 하려고 했다며 원고의 뺨을 때린 사실, 또한 피고가 밖에서 집으로 전화할 때 원고가 조금이라도 전화를 늦게 받으면 무슨 짓을 하느라고 이제야 전화를 받느냐고 고함치며 원고를 의심한 사실, 1993.8. 둘째 아이 출산 이틀 전에는 다툼 끝에 원고의 부른 배 위에 깔고 앉아 원고의 목을 누르고 죽으라며 폭력을 행사한 사실(그 후 둘째 아이는 출산 직후 심한 다발성 기형아로 사망하였다), 피고는 1991.12. 무역업을 그만두고 부동산임대료 수입으로 생활하면서부터 무위도식하여 한나절을 침대 위에서 놀다가 오후 3, 4시쯤 외출을 하여 새벽 1,2시에 귀가하거나 가끔 외박을 하고 뭐 했느냐고 묻는 원고에게는 "가는 곳마다 웬 과부들이 그렇게 많은지 모르겠다. 제발 너만 꺼져주면 줄을 서서 기다린다"고 말하는 등 원고를 무시하고 원고에게 생활비 한 번을 제대로 주지 아니한 사실, 원고의 부모는 피고에게 원고와의 혼인신고와 사건본인의 출생신고를 할 것을 애원하였으나 피고가 끝까지 이를 거부하자 견디다 못한 원고는 1993.10. 사건본인을 데리고 친정으로 들어간 이래로 피고와 별거하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

B. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim of consolation money

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married on November 28, 1990 and were in a de facto marital relationship between about three years and the time of their stay on October 1993. The above relationship basically belongs to the Defendant’s general sense and forced sexual relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby leaving the Plaintiff in a difficult situation. In addition, even after marriage, the Defendant was unable to report the marriage with the Plaintiff, without disregarding the Plaintiff’s personality, and thus making the Plaintiff extremely unfair treatment.

Therefore, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered severe mental suffering due to the failure of a de facto marriage relationship due to the above actions by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to suffer the above mental suffering of the plaintiff. Considering all circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the pleading of this case, such as the party's age, the period of de facto marriage, the circumstance of a de facto marital life, the reason for the failure thereof, the cause of the failure thereof, the academic background, and the degree of property, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant

2. Determination on the claim for division of property

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 14 and Eul evidence Nos. 15-1 and 15-2, the defendant operated a trade company "(name omitted) trade" in Kimpo Airport Dong from before marriage, and purchased and owned the land and its 4th floor, living facilities and one house (before extension of buildings listed in the attached list) above on December 24, 1988. After marriage, the defendant continued the above trade business, used the 4th floor of the above building as a residential house with the plaintiff, and acquired rent income from the above 3th and below the remaining 5th floor from the store to the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff and the defendant started sale of the above 5th floor of the above building on April 192, 190, and completed sale of the above 30th and below the above 5th unit building on April 5, 199, and completed sale of the above 190,000 won after deducting the above 30th unit rent of the building from the above 100th and below.

According to the above facts, although the extension portion of the fifth floor among the buildings in this case is in the sole name of the defendant in its appearance, it is the common property created by the plaintiff and the defendant through marriage, and thus, it is not appropriate to divide the above property itself into the defendant in accordance with the divorce in this case. In light of all the circumstances such as the nature of the above property, it is reasonable to divide the above property itself into the defendant, and it is reasonable to pay in cash the part equivalent to the plaintiff's contribution ratio among the above property's value. Considering all other circumstances such as the period of de facto marriage, circumstance leading up to the failure, the party's age, property status, the degree of the plaintiff's cooperation with respect to the formation of property during the de facto marriage in this case, and the amount of the plaintiff's livelihood after the de facto marriage resolution, it is reasonable to pay the plaintiff a division of property equivalent to 755,000,000 won which is equivalent to the above sales price's 75,000,000 won.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the actual owner of 1762 square meters prior to the establishment of a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant, and thus, it is subject to the division of property in this case. However, according to the evidence Nos. 11, 12, and evidence Nos. 13-1, 13-3, the above real estate can be acknowledged as having been purchased by Nonparty 2, who is the Defendant, from the former owner, on May 26, 1989, prior to the establishment of a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Even if the Defendant is the actual owner of the above real estate, it constitutes the Defendant’s unique property before the establishment of a de facto marital relationship between the original and the Defendant, and thus, it constitutes the Defendant’s exclusive property, and this part of the claim is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for designation of the exerciseer of parental authority, designation of the rearer, and child support payment

The plaintiff sought designation of a person exercising parental authority, designation of a person fostering children, and child support for the principal of the case born between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, according to the above facts, the plaintiff and the defendant did not complete a marriage report and the birth report of the principal of the case, the principal of the case is bound to be a person who was born during a de facto marriage, and the legal parent-child relationship between the plaintiff and the principal of the case is naturally established by the fact that the child was born during a de facto marriage without a special recognition procedure, but there is no evidence to prove that the legal parent-child relationship between the father and the principal of the case between the defendant and the principal of the case is recognized as the principal of the case in accordance with the legal principles, unless there is no evidence to prove that the child was recognized as the principal of the case, the father, and the principal of the case must naturally obey the right of sole parent-child relationship of the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim for designation of a person exercising parental authority on the premise of co-child relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is unlawful.

Then, according to Articles 837 and 843 of the Civil Act and Article 2(1)2(2)3 of the Family Litigation Act, a request for a disposition of custody against a person may be made only when it is based on divorce, recognition, or revocation of marriage. Unlike this case, there is no legal basis for filing a claim for a disposition of custody against a person who is not recognized in a de facto marital action like this case. Thus, this part of a claim is illegal (However, when the defendant who is his father recognizes the principal of this case, a request for the designation of the exerciser of parental authority and the disposition of custody against the person who is based on recognition pursuant to Article 909(4) of the Civil Act and Article 2(1)2(2)3 and 5 of the Family Litigation Act may be filed).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the claim for designation of the person exercising parental authority over the principal of this case, the designation of the person having parental authority over the principal of this case, and the claim for payment of child support are dismissed in entirety, and the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 20,000,000 won as consolation money. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is reasonable to determine it as above with regard to

Judges Jeong So-young (Presiding Judge)