[1] Where one spouse of a de facto marital spouse renounces his/her obligations under Article 826(1) of the Civil Code, whether he/she is liable for damages (affirmative with qualification)

[2] Criteria for calculating consolation money due to an improper destruction of a de facto marital relationship

[1] In a de facto marital relationship, the husband and wife have the duty to live together and provide support to each other under Article 826(1) of the Civil Code, so they shall make best efforts to maintain their marital life by cooperating with each other, understanding and protecting the other through reliance and in person. If one spouse of a de facto marital relationship waives his/her duty as a husband and wife to live together, provide support and cooperate without justifiable grounds, his/her spouse shall be deemed to unfairly destroy the de facto marital relationship by abandonment in bad faith. Therefore, in principle, unless it is revealed that the other spouse is responsible for a judicial divorce, the other spouse shall not be exempted from liability for damages due to an unfair destruction of a de facto marital relationship.

[2] Since the amount of consolation money due to an unfair destruction of a de facto marital relationship is not necessarily of the nature that can be proved by evidence, the court shall determine the amount ex officio within the extent that does not go against the empirical rule by taking into account various circumstances such as the circumstance and degree leading up to the act of liability, the cause and responsibility of failure, the age, occupation, family status, financial status, etc. of the parties.

[1] Article 806 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 806 of the Civil Code

[2] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu55, 56 decided Oct. 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 1795), Supreme Court Decision 94Meu1379, 1386 decided Mar. 10, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1612)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Reu30, 347 delivered on February 21, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 그 거시 증거를 종합하여, 원고(반소피고, 이하 원고라고만 한다)는 이화여자대학교 의과대학에 재학중이던 1992. 10.경 사법시험에 합격한 피고(반소원고, 이하 피고라고만 한다)를 만나 교제를 하다가 서로 혼인을 약속하고 1994. 9.경 양가 부모들이 상견례를 한 뒤 피고가 사법연수원을 수료하기 직전인 1995. 1. 22. 결혼식을 올렸으나 혼인신고는 마치지 아니한 사실, 피고는 신혼여행을 끝내고 신혼 살림집인 서울 노원구 상계동 소재 이 사건 아파트로 돌아온 뒤 원고의 할머니 댁에 다녀오자는 원고의 제의와 대전의 피고 부모 댁에 내려가는 길에 평택에 있는 원고의 숙모 댁에 들러가자는 원고의 요청을 모두 거절하고 원고의 친구가 꽃값을 달라고 뒤늦게 연락을 했다며 화를 내는 등 불편한 모습을 보인 사실, 피고는 1995. 1. 30., 같은 달 31. 원고와 함께 대전으로 내려가 피고의 부모 및 원고의 아버지(원고의 어머니는 결혼식 이전인 1994. 10. 16. 사망하였고 원고의 아버지는 충남 금산에 거주하고 있었다.)에게 인사를 하고 올라온 다음 1995. 2. 1. 변호사 사무실 개업 준비를 한다고 다시 대전으로 내려가면서 4일쯤 후에 피고의 어머니와 함께 서울로 올라오겠다고 하였는데 같은 달 4. 혼자 집으로 돌아와서는 자신의 옷가지와 예물 등을 챙기다가 이를 만류하는 원고에게 시간을 달라고 말을 하고 집을 나가 버린 사실, 피고는 같은 달 8. 원고가 집에 없는 틈을 이용하여 피고의 물건과 패물, 살림집 전세계약서, 혼인서약서 등을 가져간 사실, 이를 발견한 원고가 직장(원고는 당시 서울 상계 백병원 소아과 레지던트로 근무하고 있었다.)도 결근한 채 대전의 시댁 등으로 피고를 찾아다녔는데 피고는 원고에게 사실혼상태에서 의지가 바뀌어 헤어지자는 것이고, 가족회의에서 결정된 사항이니 다시는 찾아다니지 말라고 하면서 사실혼관계가 파기되었음을 일방적으로 통보한 사실, 피고는 1995. 2. 중순경부터 여러 번 직접 또는 피고의 누나 등을 통하여 원고에게 전화를 걸어 신혼살림집인 이 사건 아파트에서 나가 줄 것을 요구하다가 1995. 6. 22. 서울지방법원 북부지원에 원고를 상대로 이 사건 아파트에 대한 명도소송을 제기한 사실 등을 인정하고, 이에 어긋나는 을 제4호증의 1의 일부 기재, 을 제4호증의 2, 3, 4의 각 기재와 원심 증인의 증언을 믿지 아니한다고 배척하였음을 알 수 있다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a de facto marital relationship, married couple have the duty to live together and support each other under Article 826(1) of the Civil Act, so they have the duty to cooperate, understand and protect the other party in a marital life, and make best efforts to maintain the marital life. In a case where one spouse of a de facto marital relationship has waived his/her duty as a couple to live together, provide support and cooperate with each other without justifiable grounds, his/her spouse shall be deemed to have unfairly reversed a de facto marital relationship by abandonment of bad faith. Thus, in principle, unless it is revealed that the other spouse has a cause corresponding to a judicial divorce, the other spouse shall not be exempted from liability for damages due to an unfair destruction of a de facto marital relationship.

In addition, since the amount of consolation money due to the wrongful destruction of a de facto marital relationship is not necessarily of the nature that can be proved by evidence, the court will decide the amount by its authority within the extent that it does not go against the empirical rule by taking into account various circumstances such as the circumstance and degree leading up to the responsible act, the cause and responsibility of the failure, the age, occupation, family status and financial status of the parties.

In light of the reasons and circumstances leading up to the failure of a de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, their ages, educational background, occupation, family relationship, property status, etc. as to the instant case, the defendant, in particular, was committed through a marriage ceremony through a teaching period exceeding two years from the plaintiff and the defendant, and the parties and their families in the process of preparation for marriage do not make every effort to maintain their marital life by resolving conflicts in emotional harm between the parties and their families, and the defendant did not report the marriage yet to be reported, and the defendant reversed a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff in a short period by taking a simple conflict in emotional evidence as a result of the failure to report the marriage. In light of the above, the consolation money of KRW 60 million, which the court below ordered the plaintiff to pay to the defendant, shall not be considered to be an excessive amount contrary to the empirical rule.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)