2018Ddan206871 Confirmation of the existence of de facto marital relations

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutor

Section B.

2. Sick:

3. Fixedness;

December 13, 2018

December 27, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the participation, shall be borne by all by the Plaintiff.

It is confirmed that a de facto marital relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the Deceased from October 7, 2003 to May 12, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 1984, the Deceased reported marriage with the Defendant Intervenor B, and under the chain, the Defendant Intervenor C and was a child.

B. The Deceased had much time far far away from the Defendant joining the Defendant, as a Banbner with string, and around October 2003, the Deceased was living in the indoor packaging center located in the Busan Dol-gu operated by the Plaintiff, while around October 2003.

C. However, the Deceased did not have been transferred to the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the Intervenor B’s Intervenor B continued to maintain the principal citizens’ registration in the same address as the above B before he/she moved to the apartment building at his/her present domicile on April 24, 2017, and the deceased continued to register the deceased as his/her dependent in his/her national health insurance (in the workplace where the deceased died) and received benefits from the health insurance. Furthermore, the Defendant’s health insurance policy, which was subscribed on March 26, 2013, entered into by the Deceased on March 26, 2013, entered the beneficiary as a statutory heir.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 15 (including branch numbers, if any), Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From October 2003 to the time of the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff was active in living together on the premise of marriage, and even if the deceased was in a legal marital relationship with B during the above period, the Plaintiff was in a de facto divorce status. The Plaintiff sought confirmation of de facto marital relationship with the deceased in order to claim for the life insurance and traffic accident compensation of the deceased.

B. Determination

In other words, a de facto marriage has a substance of marital life that can be recognized as a marital life in terms of the order of family in light of social norms. Even if a legally married couple lives with the other party under a separate marital relationship, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be protected as a de facto marriage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84141, Mar. 25, 2010). In other words, in order to establish a de facto marriage, there is a consensus between the parties, and objectively, in order to establish a de facto marriage, there is a substance of marital life that can recognize a marital life in terms of the order of family in terms of social norms, and the requirements for social justification are satisfied. Provided, That if a person legally related to a spouse has a special exception in the status of divorce, a de facto marital relationship may not be protected in a way of de facto marriage.

In this case, it should be recognized that the relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased was de facto divorced to the extent that the legal relationship between the deceased and the Eul was de facto divorced. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, as seen earlier, the deceased unilaterally started her house and her house, there was no expression of intention to divorce between the deceased and the Eul, and the deceased were registered as a dependent of Eul who is an employment provided policyholder until the deceased and received national health insurance benefits by the time of the death. In light of the fact that the beneficiary was named as a legal inheritor, it is difficult to view that the legal relationship between the deceased and Eul was not possible for a long time, and that there was no possibility of restoration in the de facto marital relationship between the deceased and Eul, and that there was no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff and the deceased have been living together for a long time as alleged by the plaintiff, it is difficult to view it as a legitimate de facto marriage relationship that can be legally protected. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that differs from this premise is rejected.

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 Cho Sung-sung