Whether a request for confirmation of existence of a de facto marital relationship may be made where a couple has no substance of community life as a couple objectively;

The claimant and the respondent have taken a marriage ceremony from November 5, 197 to March 1, 1980 and operated a community life as a married couple with the intent of marriage. However, if the claimant has taken a marriage ceremony on November 5, 1977 and the respondent has come to fall under a common life as a married couple and the claimant has withdrawn and separate the intention of marriage with the respondent, so if the claimant has no objective substance of a common life as a married couple, the respondent may not request confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship even if he still has the intention of marriage.

Article 2 of the Family Inquiry Act

May 8, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 79Mo3 delivered on May 8, 1979 (Kaod 1273, Supreme Court Decision 27 ② 18, Court Decision No. 2(1)129, Court Gazette 613, Court Gazette 1993)

Claimant

appellees

Jeonju District Court (80d109, 81d101)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the appellee.

This adjudication: it is confirmed that a de facto marital relationship does not exist between an appellant (a half-trial respondent-hereinafter referred to as the respondent's abbreviation) and the respondent (a half-trial).

Adjudication on the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the appellee.

An anti-adjudication: It is confirmed that a de facto marital relationship exists between an applicant and the respondent.

An adjudication on the costs of an anti-trial shall be borne by the claimant.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that a de facto marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent exists. The claimant's claim is dismissed.

Judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the claimant in both the first and second instances;

1. Judgment on the main appeal

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1및 제2호증(각 주민등록표등본)의 각 기재내용, 원심증인 청구외 1, 2, 3, 4, 당심증인 청구외 5의 각 증언, 원심의 청구인 및 피청구인 각 본인신문결과(단 뒤에서 믿지않는 부분제외)에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 청구인과 피청구인은 피청구인의 언니인 청구외 3의 중매로 1977. 11. 5. 전주시 경원동 소재 봉래원예식장에서 양가친지의 참석하에 결혼식을 거행한 후 전북 임실읍 (이하 생략) 소재 청구인의 집에서 청구인의 편모 및 미혼동생 1명과 함께 사실상의 부부로서 동거생활을 시작하여 그 사이에 1남 1녀를 출산한 사실, 그런데 피청구인은 청구인의 모인 청구외 6이 가정경제를 주도하는 것이 못마땅하고 시골의 생활이 불편하여 전주시로 분가할 것을 청구인에게 졸라댔으나 청구인이 이에 응하지 아니하여서 이로 인하여 자주 의견충돌이 있었으므로 청구인은 무마책으로 1979. 7.경 약 1킬로미터 상거한 같은읍 (상세 번지 생략)로 이사하여 분가하기에 이른 사실, 그런데도 피청구인은 시골에는 목욕탕도 없고 답답하여 못살겠다고 하면서 다시 전주시로 이사할 것을 요구하였고 전주시에 있는 친정에 갔다온다는 핑계로 자주 외출을 하고 때로는 외박을 하곤하였으며, 한편 청구인도 피청구인의 위와 같은 불성실한 태도에 실망하여 피청구인에 대한 애정이 식어져서 야근 또는 출장을 이유로 피청구인과 유아1명만이 있는 집에 돌아오지 아니하기를 자주하기 시작하더니 1개월 또는 2개월간씩 귀가하지 아니할 때도 있었으며 청구인이 집을 비운사이에 절도가 야간에 침입한 적도 있었던 사실, 1980. 1.경에 이르러 피청구인이 다시 임신한 것을 알게 된 청구인은 점장이로부터 아이를 낳으면 재수가 없다는 말을 들었다는 이유로 피청구인에게 낙태할 것을 강요하고 그 비용 및 생활비조로 700,000원을 주므로 이를 가지고 전주시에 있는 친정집에서 2,3일 머물다가 분가하여 살던 집에 가본즉 청구인은 청구인의 살림도구를 모두 챙겨 모가 살고있는 집으로 이사를 하여버렸고 다시 돌아와 함께 살기를 간청하는 피청구인을 축출하였던 사실, 피청구인이 같은해 2. 20.경 아들의 돌 잔치를 하기위하여 위 임실읍 (상세 번지 생략) 소재 집에서 음식을 장만하여 놓고 시집식구와 친정식구들을 초대하였으나 청구인의 가족은 물론 청구인 마저도 참석하지 아니한 사실, 그후 같은해 3월경 피청구인이 시모가 있는 집으로 청구인을 찾아가서 용서와 이해를 빌고 앞으로는 청구인이나 시모의 말에 순종하겠다고 다짐하였으나 청구인은 함께 살수 없으니 이혼하겠다고 하면서 당장 나가라고 호통을 쳐서 피청구인은 친정집으로 오게 되었고 그후로 현재까지 청구인과 피청구인은 별거하여 왔으며 피청구인이 직접 또는 친정식구를 보내어 다시 합쳐 살것을 간청하였으나 청구인의 의사는 변함이 없었고 피청구인이 양육하고 있는 두 아이의 양육비도 보태주지 아니하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있고 위 인정에 반하는 원심증인 청구외 1, 2, 3, 4 당심증인 청구외 5의 각 증언부분과 원심의 청구인 및 피청구인 본인신문결과부분은 믿지 아니하며 달리 위 인정을 좌우할 자료가 없다.

Since a false de facto marital relationship exists on the basis of a de facto marital relationship, it can be resolved by the will of one of the parties, and if there is no objective substance of a community life as a husband and wife due to the reversal of one of the parties, the de facto marital relationship will not exist after resolving it. According to the above facts of recognition, the claimant and the respondent, who started from November 5, 197 to March 1, 1980, was subject to a separate marriage, and was in a de facto marital relationship by running a common life as a husband and wife with the intention of marriage, even though they did not have a minor marriage, and thereafter, the claimant was in a de facto marital relationship with the petitioner and the respondent. However, since the claimant was unaware of the defendant's bad will of marriage and the defendant did not have an objective fact as a husband and wife, there is no de facto marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent, and on the premise that there is a de facto marital relationship between the respondent and the respondent, the claimant's claim for adjudication on the non-existence of the interest of the claimant in this case is well-grounded.

2. Judgment on a request for an anti-appeal

Since the claimant and the respondent got married on November 5, 197, the defendant gave birth to two children while living together with the married couple. From July 1979 to July 6, 1979, a little reflections began between the mother and the non-party 6, and even from March 1980, the claimant and the respondent left separate lives due to the above circumstance, and they still intend to continue the marriage. Thus, the claimant and the respondent claim confirmation as to whether they still have a de facto marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent. However, as seen above, the claimant and the respondent had an intention to live in common life with one another on November 5, 197 to March 1980, the respondent had no intention to live in common life, and even if the claimant had no intention to engage in the marriage and the respondent's intention to refrain from being in a separate form of marriage, there is still no objective intention to engage in the marital life as a result of the claimant's withdrawal of the marital relationship.

3. Therefore, the appellant's appeal on the merits of this case shall be accepted as well as the respondent's appeal on the grounds that it is without merit, and the appeal on the merits of this case shall be dismissed as the respondent's appeal is justified and without merit, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Man-soon (Presiding Judge) Lee So-young