1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff maintained de facto marital relationship with the Defendant from around June of the same year to around August 16, 2013, where the Defendant, who worked as C by GS Construction Corporation, was working as a restaurant room at the site of apartment construction works located in the Daegu-gu merchants’ Dong.

B. Meanwhile, on December 13, 2012, the Defendant divorced from the Defendant’s former wife D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Around the time the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant began living with the Defendant, the Defendant came to live together with the Defendant, stating that he was divorced from the former wife. On August 2012, 2012, the Defendant was aware that he was not divorced from the former wife, and the Defendant was not divorced.

As such, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff while being in the existence of legal confusion, and let the plaintiff concurrently take workplace life and house burden for seven years and raise the defendant's children, and formed the defendant's property with the plaintiff's sacrifice. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for mental and material damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above deception.

B. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant living together for about seven years, and the Defendant maintained a de facto marriage relationship for a considerable period of time even after the divorce lawsuit was pending on August 2012, and the resolution of the de facto marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to result in other problems between the Plaintiff and the Defendant rather than the Defendant’s living together without notifying the fact that the Defendant had been living together, as seen above, regarding whether there was a deception by the Defendant, and whether there was a causal relationship between such deception and the Plaintiff’s damage, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the entries in the evidence No. 6 and the testimony of E by the witness.