2013D 4830 Confirmation of de facto marital relations

A

Prosecutor of the Seo-gu District Prosecutors' Office

April 30, 2013

2013, 514

1. It is confirmed that a marital relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the deceased B from June 6, 2004 to January 29, 2013.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around May 2, 1996, the Plaintiff divorced with her husband, and the network B was distinguished from her wife in around 2002. B. On June 6, 2004, the Plaintiff and B were living together from that time until B died as a heart soldier on January 29, 2013 without filing a marriage report while her relatives were present. The Plaintiff and B participated in various family events, B’s workplace events, or private school meetings, during the period of living with her husband, and even female travel, such as C, who is a father of B.

D. On June 21, 2005, B signed a written consent of the operation as a guardian when the Plaintiff was to undergo the operation at the hospital, and provided nursing for the Plaintiff during the period of hospitalization.

E. As the Plaintiff’s mother died in around 2010, B took a funeral as a fraudulent act with the Plaintiff, and the words “marious A and her child B” were inscribed in the “child column in the seat of the Plaintiff’s mother’s grave.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A(including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

According to the above facts, the plaintiff and Eul maintained de facto de facto marital relations with the substance of marital community by living together, supporting, and cooperating with each other with the intention of marriage from June 6, 2004 to January 29, 2013, when they entered into the lawsuit of this case in order to receive the bereaved family pension, etc. under the Public Officials Pension Act due to the death of Eul (the denial of the above C and the plaintiff recognized that they actually entered into a de facto marital relationship).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Goh Sung