In a case where Gap had been engaged in a matrimonial engagement with Eul, and Eul unilaterally notified the parties Gap as a result of an unlawful act, and sought consolation money for the cancellation of a matrimonial engagement against Eul on the ground that the matrimonial engagement was extinguished unfairly, the case dismissing Gap's claim on the ground that it is difficult to acknowledge that Gap and Eul had an explicit or implied agreement to marry with Eul for the future.

In a case where Gap had been engaged in a matrimonial engagement with Eul and Eul, and Eul unilaterally notified the parties Gap of the fact that the matrimonial engagement was unilaterally destroyed by the conclusion of the agreement, the case dismissing Gap's claim on the ground that it is difficult to acknowledge that there was an explicit agreement between Gap and Eul to marry, and there was no circumstance that Gap and Eul agreed to enter into a marriage ceremony or promised to enter into a marriage ceremony or make a promise to enter into a marriage hall, it is difficult to recognize that Gap and Eul had an implied agreement to enter into a marriage with Eul for about four months on the sole basis of the circumstance that Eul and Eul were entered into a family with Eul and their parents together with Gap and their parents, and that Gap, Eul and both parents were married in a restaurant, and it is difficult to recognize that there was an implied agreement to enter into a marriage with Eul.

Article 806 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other

August 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 10,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the pronouncement of this judgment, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and Defendant 1 are the parties to a matrimonial engagement. Defendant 2, who was well aware of the above facts, committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse with Defendant 1, while Defendant 1 committed an unlawful act with Defendant 2, and Defendant 1, who unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the decision at the end of June, 2015, reversed the Plaintiff’s matrimonial engagement by unilaterally notifying the Plaintiff of the decision and then, the Defendants are jointly liable to pay consolation money for emotional distress inflicted upon the Plaintiff due to the cancellation of the matrimonial engagement.

2. Determination

A. Generally, a matrimonial engagement is established when there exists an agreement between the parties who intend to enter into the future marriage without a special form (see Supreme Court Decision 98Meu961, Dec. 8, 1998). The agreement is possible not only by explicit agreement but also by implied agreement. However, in the case of the cancellation of a matrimonial engagement, one of the parties can seek damages against the other party with negligence about property damage and mental suffering (Article 806(1) and (2) of the Civil Act). In light of the fact that one of the parties can easily seek damages against the other party with negligence (Article 806(1) and (2) of the Civil Act), since it is possible to restrict or infringe the freedom of marriage if the formation of a matrimonial engagement is recognized, caution should be taken to recognize that there was an agreement between the parties about the matrimonial engagement.

B. We examine the establishment of a matrimonial engagement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 in this case.

① The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 promised to marry to the Plaintiff on May 2014, or that Defendant 1’s father gave her frank to the Plaintiff around October 2015, Defendant 1’s father around March 2015, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Moreover, there is no circumstance that Defendant 1 conducted a matrimonial relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 or exchanged fachisiums. Thus, it is difficult to find that there was an explicit agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 to marry in the future.

② Next, we examine whether there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 to enter into the future marriage.

From May 2014 to August 2014, Defendant 1 entered the Plaintiff’s main place of business with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s parents, the Plaintiff’s large leakage, and the Plaintiff’s parents. On March 8, 2015, the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 and their parents were standing in the restaurant called “settlement of accounts” located in the Busan East-dong Hot Spring Port. The fact that Defendant 1’s father had been working for the Plaintiff after one week from his father, does not dispute Defendant 1. Furthermore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 tried to enter the real estate brokerage office in order to get a new marriage on or around May 2016. Meanwhile, considering that the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 tried to enter into a promise with the Plaintiff on May 1, 2016, the Plaintiff did not appear to have concluded an agreement on the entire date of the argument with the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s head of the ○○○○○○○, a public performance model, or Defendant 1’s title of marriage.

원고는 그 밖에도 2014. 6.경 경남 진해에서 개최된 피고 1의 남동생의 해병대 소위 임관식에 동행하고, 2014년 추석과 2015년 설에 피고 1의 부모를 찾아뵙고 인사를 하였으며, 2015. 3. 말경에는 피고 1의 조모 생신 잔치에도 참석하여 위 피고의 친척들에게 인사를 하였으며, 2015. 4.경에는 원고 누나의 집들이 때에도 피고 1과 동행하는 등 원고와 피고 1이 2014. 5.경부터 서로 약혼자로서 역할을 해 왔다고 주장하나, 위와 같은 사정들은 약혼자로서가 아닌 친밀한 이성친구로서도 할 수 있는 일들로서 원고와 피고가 이성교제에 더하여 공연기획사 대표와 전속배우로서 밀접한 관계에 있었던 사정까지 고려하여 보면, 약혼을 인정할 만한 결정적 징표는 될 수 없다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money against the defendants, which is sought on the premise that the conclusion of matrimonial engagement between the plaintiff and defendant 1, is constituted, is without merit without further examination as to the remaining points.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Sang-sung