1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiff appealed in the court of first instance asserted in the court of first instance, are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, and the facts established and determined in the court of first instance in full view of the purport

Therefore, the reasoning of this court is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to adding and supplementing the judgment as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

Part 5 of the decision of the first instance court, "G" in Part 3 shall be raised to "F".

2. Additional and Supplementary parts

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the deceased H’s resident registration record card photograph is unlawful on the ground that C was in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased F by living in the name of the deceased H and giving birth to several children, etc., and C was in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased H.

Along with D father P and Ma Q, the network H was born between R father S and Ma T, and it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of evidence Nos. 12 through 15 was the same person as the network H, or that C was the same as the network H in the name of the network H.

In addition, in order to establish a de facto marriage, there should be a subjective agreement between the parties to the marriage, and there should be an substance of marital life which can be objectively recognized as a marital life.

(Supreme Court Decision 200Do4942 Decided January 30, 2001). However, although C is deemed to have given birth to G with UNN, it was recognized that such fact and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff were consistent with C’s intention to marry with the deceased F.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a substance of marriage.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3, and 16-18 of Eul, C seems to have been living mainly with the plaintiff.

Therefore, C was in de facto marital relationship with the net F.