The legal nature of wedding expenses, wedding expenses, and articles of succession

The wedding expenses are expenses for the establishment of a marriage, and the wedding and mixed goods are the donation under a kind of mutual-exchangeless condition, which is received from the parties to a case where a marriage is established or from the intention of stronging the definition of their values. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, such as taking money or goods from the beginning or married for other unlawful purposes, they shall be the establishment of a marriage where a de facto marriage was a de facto marriage, and thus, they shall have achieved the purpose thereof. Therefore, they shall not seek compensation for damages due to a de facto marital failure.

Article 806 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Meu41,42 delivered on December 28, 1976 (Supreme Court Decision 11405 delivered on November 14, 197, Supreme Court Decision 243Da86 delivered on June 26, 200, Supreme Court Decision 806No. 7)

A

B Other 2 others

Daegu District Court (76D243 Judgment) of the first instance

1. Of the original adjudication, the part of the claimant's loss against the respondent C in respect of the money of which payment is ordered by:

2. The respondent C shall pay 1,500,000 won to the claimant jointly and severally with the respondent D, B, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from May 20, 1976 to the full payment.

3. All remaining appeals by the claimant and all appeals by the respondent D and B are dismissed;

4. The conjunctive claim of the claimant added in the trial shall be dismissed;

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each respondent D, and by each respondent, by the parts arising from each appeal filed by the appellant and the appellee D, and by each appeal filed by the appellant and B, by each of the appellees. The parts arising between the appellant and C shall be divided into three parts, respectively, and one of them shall be borne by the appellant and the other two defendants, respectively.

6. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The respondent shall jointly and severally pay 2,376,050 won to the claimant and 5% per annum from the day following the service of the written appeal on this case to the full payment.

Trial costs shall be borne by the respondent and a declaration of provisional execution.

The respondent shall jointly and severally deliver the goods listed in the attached Table 1 to the claimant, and if it is impossible to deliver the goods, the respondent shall jointly and severally pay 292,550 won.

Trial costs shall be borne by the respondent and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original adjudication shall be modified as follows, and the purport of the original adjudication shall be stated in the purport of the claim.

1. Judgment on the claim part of consolation money

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1,2호증, 같은 제3호증의 1,2, 같은 제8호증 내지 제13호증(단 11호증중 다음에 믿지 않는 부분 제외), 같은 제15호증 내지 19호증 원심증인 E의 증언에 의하여 그 진정성립을 인정할 수 있는 갑 제6호증의 각 기재 및 원심증인 F, G, E, H 원심 및 당심증인 I, J의 각 증언에 원심에서 청구인 본인신문결과와 당사자변론의 전취지를 모아보면 청구인은 국민학교를 졸업하고 공장직공으로 취직하여 가사를 돕고 있던 처녀이고 피청구인 B는 같은 C를 아버지로 같은 D를 어머니로 하여 출생한 장남으로서 고등학교를 졸업하고 가사를 돌보고 있던 자로서 위 두사람은 1976.1.16.경 그 자신들과 양가부모들의 합의아래 약혼을 하고 같은해 1.27. 혼례식을 올리고 사실상 혼인을 한 사실, 피청구인 B는 이른바 신행일인 같은해 2.9.경부터 그의 집에서 청구인과 사실상 부부로서 동거생활을 시작한 직후부터 혼수품이 적고 청구인의 인물이 변변치 못하고 결혼식때 친구들에게 돈을 적게 주어서 자신의 체면을 손상시켰으며 육체관계의 요청에도 잘 응하여 주지 아니한다는등의 불평을 하면서 그의 어머니인 피청구인 D와 함께 청구인을 점차 냉대하기 시작하였고 청구인 역시 피청구인측의 식구가 많아 맏며느리로서의 책임이 무겁고 시부모와 한집에 같이 사는데 불만을 표시하는등으로 사소한 가정불화가 있어 오다가 피청구인 B는 같은해 2.14.경 청구인이 근친을 가는데 동행하였다가 위와 같은 이유를 들어 같이 살수 없다고 하면서 청구인을 떼어 놓고 혼자서 자신의 집으로 되돌아 온 사실, 같은해 2.19.경 청구인이 시가로 돌아오자 그 무렵부터 피청구인 B는 청구인에게 집을 나가라는등 학대를 하기 시작하여 같은해 2.21.경에는 청구인이 집을 나가라는 요구에 불응한다는 이유로 청구인의 머리채를 잡아 수차례 벽에 부딪치고 발로 전신을 밟고 차는등 폭행을 가하여 청구인에게 약 2주일간의 가료를 요하는 후두부, 안면부좌상등을 입히고 그로 인하여 청구인은 정신의학적 가료를 요하는 급성심인성 정신분열증세까지 일으키게 되었던 사실, 위와 같은 폭행을 견디다 못한 청구인이 친정으로 피신하였다가 병원에 입원치료를 받던 중 완치되지 아니한 몸으로도 피청구인 B와 동거하여 가정의 화합을 이룩하려는 마음에서 같은해 2.24.경 피청구인들의 집으로 들어갔으나 피청구인 B의 아버지인 같은 C까지 이에 가세하여 청구인을 며느리로서 받아들일 수 없다하여 집을 나가라고 고함치고 같은 D는 청구인이 들어오지 못하도록 문앞을 막아서고 하다가 그래도 청구인이 억지로 방안에 들어가자 같은 D는 청구인이 위 혼인예물로 받은 금반지, 목걸이등을 빼앗고 같은 B와 함께 집을 나가라고 밀어 내어서 결국은 청구인이 집밖으로 쫓겨나고 그후에도 계속적인 피청구인들의 동거거부로 인하여 청구인과 피청구인 B가 별거하여 오고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있고 이에 배치되는 을 제1호증 내지 제4호증, 위 갑 제11호증의 각 기재부분 및 원심증인 K, L, M, 당심증인 N의 각 일부증언과 원심에서 피청구인 D, B의 각 본인신문결과중의 일부는 믿지 아니하고 달리 이를 뒤집을 자료없다.

If the facts are as above, the claimant and the respondent were married and married relations were established and the substance as a de facto marital relationship was maintained from the beginning of living together with them, and they had been separated from each other on February 24, 1976, which was not much living together, and so the state has continued so far, so the de facto marital relationship has failed. This shall be the failure of the above de facto marital relationship. This shall be jointly and severally committed by the respondent B, who shall endeavor to understand the location and difficulties of the claimant who lives and their difficulties and to lead a smooth community life among the married couple by understanding the location and difficulties of the living environment, such as the birth and settlement situation, etc., as above recognition, and make efforts to lead the smooth life of the married couple between the claimant and the respondent, and the respondent C and D participated in the above forced marriage, etc. only on the part of the respondent B, who is unilaterally the defendant, and therefore, the respondent shall be jointly and severally liable for mental distress due to the above de facto marital distress.

Meanwhile, in a de facto marital failure, the claimant also without considering the respondent’s appearance and living environment, etc., and without considering the respondent’s appearance and living environment, knew that there was a competing fact, such as establishing a de facto marital relationship with the respondent B, and indicating a complaint against the death of the Si/Gun/Gu immediately with the Si/Gun/Gu. This does not amount to the extent of exempting the respondent from the above liability. Therefore, in calculating the amount of consolation money,

Furthermore, in relation to the amount of consolation money, it is reasonable to determine consolation money as KRW 1,500,000, considering the circumstance where the failure of the living period between the claimant and the respondent, the degree of fault of the claimant, academic background, financial status, and all other circumstances revealed in the records as mentioned above, based on the evidence mentioned above.

2. Determination on the claim for damages on property

(1) Part of the principal claim

As above, the claimant claims compensation for losses of 376,050 won in the attached Table 2 by taking over 83,500 won in the attached Table 2 from the defendant's property and mixed property recorded in the attached Table 1 with money 292,550 won under the condition that the defendant will continue a marital life in fact with the defendant's marriage. Thus, the claimant claims compensation for damages of 376,050 won in the attached Table 2 with the defendant's property and mixed property which were received under the condition that the defendant will continue a marital life in fact with the defendant's marriage. Thus, the claimant's property and mixed property are a donation of a kind of mutual exchange-free condition received from the party to the case where a marital relationship is established and it is not necessary to further seek compensation for damages from the claimant's property and mixed property even if they were married with the defendant's property and it is not necessary to achieve the purpose of a de facto marital relationship with the defendant's property.

(2) Part of the preliminary claim

The claimant asserts that the claimant has the duty to return the deposited goods and the mixed goods in the attached list No. 1 that the claimant provided to the defendant due to the failure of the above de facto marriage between the claimant and the respondent, and the claimant claims the return of the original goods, and the return of the original goods is impossible, the claimant claims the payment of KRW 292,50,000, which is the price at the time of purchase when it is impossible to return them. Thus, the legal nature of the deposited goods and the mixed goods is as seen in the judgment of the above state claim portion, as seen above, it cannot be claimed the return even if the purpose is achieved by the establishment of the above de facto marriage between the claimant and B and the respondent, and even if the marriage has disappeared, the above conjunctive claim part is not

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the respondent is jointly and severally liable to pay the claimant damages for delay at a rate of five percent per annum under the Civil Act from May 20, 1976 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the petition for appeal on this case. Thus, the petitioner's claim on this case shall be accepted within the above recognized limit, and the remainder shall be dismissed without merit. Since the plaintiff's claim on this case shall be concluded differently from the part ordering the payment of the amount under Paragraph (2) of the above Article, it is unfair as to the part ordering the payment of the amount under Paragraph (2) of the above Article. Thus, the defendant's claim on this case shall be revoked only for the part ordering the payment of the amount under Paragraph (2) of the above Article, and the remaining part of the defendant's claim on D and the same part as Paragraph (2) of the above Article shall be revoked as well as the remaining part of the plaintiff's appeal on this case's appeal and the conjunctive claim on this case's appeal by the respondent D, and it shall be dismissed as all, and the provisional execution order shall be applied Articles 9, 92 and 93 of the provisional execution order.

Judges Kim Ho-young (Presiding Judge)