Whether or not there is liability even the mother who interferes with the performance of the marital reservation in claiming damages against the husband in a de facto marital relationship due to nonperformance of the marital reservation.

When it is apparent that the defendant (e.g., male) reversed the marital reservation with the plaintiff without any justifiable reason, and the defendant (e.g., male) as a guardian of the mutual suppression of the execution of the marital reservation, if the defendant reverses the marital reservation, he/she shall be jointly liable to the defendant, etc.

Article 806 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Meu14 delivered on May 31, 1965

Freeboard ○

○○ and one other

Daegu District Court of the first instance (4293 Civil Joint230 Ruling)

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay a sum of one million won to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's objection claim and defendant ○○'s incidental prosecution are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and one of the plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay a gold of five million won to the plaintiff. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant et al. through the court of first and second instances, and the defendant et al.'s attorney shall seek a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's dismissal, and the defendant et al.'s attorney shall revoke the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant.

The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s de facto statement was made to Defendant 2, 1, 3, and 4284, and the Plaintiff’s non-compliance with Defendant 2’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s 2.

In the case of Defendant, etc.’s legal representative, the Plaintiff and Defendant, etc. were born the fact that the status quo of Defendant, etc. was married on the date on which the Plaintiff asserted, and that the Plaintiff and Defendant, etc. were living separately. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is denied. In other words, the Plaintiff, who married with Defendant 1, did not refuse to do so, and requested Defendant 1, a mother, to stop with Defendant 1, a mother’s ambry, and he refused to do so. Defendant 1’s request on July 28, 286, when Defendant 286, when Defendant 1 left the house without permission, his mother came to come to the Plaintiff’s clothes and daily supplies, and her mother was born with 10 times sons and sons, and thus, she could not interfere with the Plaintiff’s work during the period from 10 days after her birth to her mother’s family and her mother, and thus, she could not interfere with the Plaintiff’s work.

As a method of proof, the plaintiff's attorney submitted Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 6, and invoked each testimony of the court below's witness Hong-ri, Dong Kim-ri, Dong Young-ri, Dong Young-ri, Dong Kim Young-ri, Dong Kim Young-su, Dong Kim Young-su and Lee Ho-ri, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-ho, and Lee Jong-young's testimony, and the formation of each evidence No.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant gave birth to the Defendant on November 12, 4284, the Plaintiff and the Defendant et al. were married and gave birth to the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, et al. were separate from each other, were the witness of the lower court without any dispute between the parties, so if they comprehensively reflect the purport of the parties’ arguments on the testimony of this case, the Plaintiff’s ○○ and the short-term 4,000-term 11.12, were in fact married on November 12, 4284, and the Defendant et al., gave birth to Defendant 1 and gave birth to the Defendant ○○○○○ and the above e-mail, and the Defendant et al. were jointly and severally liable for damages to Defendant 1’s e-mail and the Defendant’s e-mail’s e-mail to the Defendant 200-year e-mail to the Defendant’s e-mail and the Defendant’s e-mail’s e-mail.

Therefore, in relation to the consolation money, if the plaintiff was the body of a woman who had received higher education, and gave birth to 1 South Korea, the reservation was reversed, and the defendant ○○ is currently operating a hospital with a doctor for several years, the consolation money for the plaintiff's mental suffering should be appropriate as a refund of 1 million won, if the plaintiff knew about the status of the property of the defendant, etc. as shown in the records, the age of the plaintiff and the defendant, etc., and the academic background and other all facts.

That is, the plaintiff's main claim shall be accepted within the scope of the good recognition, and such a claim shall be dismissed because it is improper, so the judgment of the court of first instance is not consistent with this, and thus, the incidental unit of the defendant O○ Hero shall be revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the incidental unit of the defendant O○ Hero shall be dismissed by Article 384 of the same Act, and it shall be decided as follows by applying Articles 96, 89, 92, and 93 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Jong-su (Presiding Judge)