209u637 Damage ( de facto marriage destruction)

A

B

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Ra22001 Decided June 9, 2009

November 18, 2009

December 2, 200

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 20% interest per annum from the next day of service of the complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 9-1 through 10, Gap evidence 10-1 through 22, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. A. Around May 2004, the Plaintiff and his family members agreed with the Defendant around 2004. From around 2004, the Plaintiff got married to Hong Kong along with the Defendant from June 20, 2004 to June 23, 2004. (b) On November 13, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to engage in marriage with the Plaintiff on the leased apartment located in Daegu around September 2004, and lived with the Defendant for 20 days on the ground of the Plaintiff’s divorce experience, etc., but the Defendant was living in the apartment on around October 2004. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to enter into marriage again on April 207, 207, and the Defendant did not enter into the marriage with the Plaintiff on around 208, and the Defendant did not enter into the marriage with the Plaintiff on July 27, 2008.

D. The defendant had no resident registration in the same domicile as the plaintiff during the above living period, and had his resident registration domicile in Seoul around September 2008, which had been married with another person.

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff has maintained a de facto marital relationship with the defendant from May 2004. The defendant unilaterally cancelled the marriage consciousness scheduled on November 13, 2004, and even thereafter repeated marriage with others on or around September 2008, and unjustly reversed a de facto marital relationship by marriage with others. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay 50 million won as property damage and consolation money equivalent to the expenses that the plaintiff incurred in maintaining a de facto marital relationship to the plaintiff.

De facto marriage refers to a combination of men and women not recognized as a legally married couple because a person has an intention to marry between the parties and is engaged in a real marital life that is socially deemed legitimate, while not reporting the marriage, which is the form of the formal requirement. Therefore, to establish a de facto marriage, a person in a marital life ought to have the substance of marital life, which is objectively recognized as a marital life in terms of the social order and order of the parties, in order to establish a de facto marriage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do4942, Jan. 30, 200; 200Da52943, Apr. 13, 2001).

However, on November 13, 2004, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to enter a marriage with the plaintiff on November 13, 2004 and lived at the same time for 20 days, but around October 2004, the defendant's family members opposed to marriage on the ground of the plaintiff's divorce experience, etc. The defendant left the apartment, while living together again on the premise of marriage at the same time on August 24, 2007, the defendant did not have a resident registration at the same domicile during the above living period, and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant had a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff and the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff's family members had no other mental relation with the plaintiff 1 and the defendant's family members for the period of 10 years or more, and there is no other reason to recognize that the defendant had a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff 1 and the defendant as 10 years or more without the plaintiff's family members' mental relation with the plaintiff 2 and the defendant's family members for the above period of 10 years or more.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Gimsung

Judges Lee Do-young

Judges Kim Gin-han