[1] The case recognizing the benefit of confirming a de facto marital relationship with the deceased who filed a claim against the public prosecutor for the purpose of becoming a beneficiary of bereaved family benefits

[2] The case holding that a de facto marital relationship cannot be viewed as having existed in light of all the circumstances while living together for 7 years

[1] The case recognizing the benefit of confirming a de facto marital relationship with the deceased who filed a claim against the public prosecutor for the purpose of becoming a beneficiary of bereaved family benefits

[2] The case holding that a de facto marital relationship cannot be viewed as having existed in light of all the circumstances while living together for 7 years

[1] Article 2 (1) (a)-2-1 and / [2] Article 812 of the Family Litigation Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Solomon General Law Office, Attorneys Lee Yong-han, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Prosecutor of Seoul District Prosecutor

1. A person who is a public official in charge of the affairs of the deceased Kim Jong-gi, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

It is confirmed that there is a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty 1.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

From September 1989 to January 1, 1996, the Plaintiff and the Deceased, who were hospitalized by the deceased Non-Party 1 in Byung, had the intention of marriage with the deceased at the Plaintiff’s home, sought confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship.

2. Facts of recognition;

The evidence of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1, 3-2, 5, 5-1 through 20, 6-1, 7, 8-1 through 3, 10-1, 2, 11-1, 12, 13-1 through 16-1, 2, 17, 20-1 through 16-3, 18, 19, 21, 221, 22-1, 3-1, 3-2, 3-2, 3-1, 3-2, 3-1, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, 3-4, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, and 4-1 of the witness's testimony.

A. The Plaintiff, who was engaged in the clothing manufacturing business under the trade name called Spath unemployment as a fashion designer, was aware of the Plaintiff’s tax relationship with the deceased Nonparty 1 at the time of springing on 1989, and thereafter, became mutually connected with the deceased. At the time, the Plaintiff was 43 years of age, who was 14 years of age or older, and the deceased was still unmarried as 37 years of age, while living with the deceased at the end of the end of 1989. The Plaintiff discontinued the above clothing manufacturing business.

B. From the end of 1989 to the end of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the deceased mainly worked at the Plaintiff’s house with clothes, books related to his duties, and household effects, etc., but the Plaintiff and the deceased did not put up a marriage ceremony. Even after the Plaintiff had come to an ancient city director on November 1, 1994, the deceased mainly worked at the Plaintiff’s house.

C. The Deceased was on duty in the Central Tax Office and moved his work place in the East gate, Nowon-gu, and the Plaintiff’s family members and relatives did not notify the Plaintiff of his living together with his family members and relatives, and the family members did not know the fact of living with the Plaintiff, and there was little person who did not know the relationship with the Plaintiff even during his birth.

D. From January 22, 1996, the deceased did not have good health, such as vain, etc., and on or around January 22, 1996, he prevented the plaintiff who was employed by friendly-gu doctors and her to accompany the plaintiff by leaving her to know of the relationship with the plaintiff in order to undergo a very rough close inspection of Ampha wave. As a result of the diagnosis, the deceased was diagnosed as an extract cancer, and was hospitalized in the above hospital on February 3, 1995, and was discharged on February 5, 199, the deceased was hospitalized in the apartment building located in the Seoul Offset-dong, Seoul, where Nonparty 2, who was the birth of the deceased, and the plaintiff was the first birth of the deceased on February 5, 1996. The deceased refused the plaintiff's nursing care.

E. After that, on April 4 of the same year, the Deceased was hospitalized in the White Hospital located in Seoul Countervailing Dong on the ground that his condition aggravated, and the Plaintiff was frequently at the hospital to kill the Deceased and demanded that the deceased report on marriage was defective, but the Deceased refused this.

F. On April 27 of the same year, the deceased did not bear any burden on the remaining family members who considered it difficult to recover, and submitted them to the tax office with retirement allowances. On April 27 of the same year, the deceased died on the 29th day of the same month while he was receiving medical care at the home of Nonparty 2, who was the birth, and the deceased’s retirement benefits were treated as the bereaved family’s benefits.

2. Determination:

In order to establish a de facto marital relationship, the plaintiff and the deceased must have a substance of marital life which can be objectively recognized as a marital life. According to the above recognition facts, the plaintiff and the deceased were acknowledged as living together for about seven years, but they did not have any marital life. The deceased's family members did not know of the relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased, and they did not know of the relationship between the plaintiff and their relatives, and the deceased did not know of the relationship between the relationship between the plaintiff and their relatives. The deceased did not report to the plaintiff at the time of the entrance into a women's mother hospital with her own relative with her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her, and did not report on the plaintiff's death.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-Jil Kim Jong-sung