logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.06.19 2018가단72720
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and C have maintained a de facto marital relationship from July 2014.

The defendant, knowing such fact, committed a fraudulent act from November 2018 to December 10, 2018, and thereby, suffered mental suffering by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money as stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff.

2. Determination:

A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). Such a legal doctrine can be equally applied to cases of damages arising from failure in a de facto marital relationship or infringement.

However, a de facto marriage referred to in this context is insufficient solely for the fact that a simple living together or a sporadic marital relationship is established, and the parties have the intention to marry subjectively between them, and objectively there is an substance of marital life that can recognize marital life in terms of social order in terms of social norms.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff and C have the intent to marry and formed a substance of marital life under the generally accepted social norms, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff and C had the intention to marry beyond the mere living relationship and formed a substance of marital life under the social norms, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Plaintiff and C did not have any awareness of externally indicating a matrimonial relationship, such as raising a marriage ceremony or photographing a photograph of a marriage.

Marriage consciousness is not necessarily required in the establishment of de facto marriage.

arrow