[1] The elements for establishing a de facto marriage

[2] The case holding that a de facto marital relationship cannot be acknowledged on the ground that the parties cannot be viewed as having agreed with the intention of marriage or a substantive substance of a marital life in light of the fact that, even if they were living together for several months on the premise of marriage, their period of living was short and they immediately ceased to exist after the marriage

[1] A de facto marriage refers to the combination of men and women not recognized as a legally married couple because a person has an intention to marry between the parties and has a substantial marital life that is socially justified, but has not reported the formal marital life. Therefore, to establish a de facto marriage, a subjective intention to marry between the parties should be satisfied, and objectively, there should be the substance of a marital life that can be recognized as a marital life in terms of family order in light of social norms.

[2] The case holding that even if living together for several months on the premise of marriage, the relation of de facto marriage cannot be acknowledged on the ground that the parties cannot be seen as having agreed with the intention of marriage or the substance of the marital life in light of the fact that the period of living together was short and the marriage was discontinued immediately after the marriage was discontinued

[1] Article 812 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 812 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do4942 decided Jan. 30, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 586) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da52943 decided Apr. 13, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1129)

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Ra22001 Decided June 9, 2009

November 18, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the contents and images of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 6, 9-1 through 10, 10-1 through 22, and 10-1 through 22.

A. A. Around May 2004, the Plaintiff shared consultations with the former wife, and around that time, brought about both the Defendant and the latter. From June 20, 2004 through June 23, 2004 to June 23, 2004, the Plaintiff was traveling to Hong Kong along with the Defendant.

B. On November 13, 2004, the plaintiff and the defendant decided to enter a marriage, and leased an apartment to the Daegu Sung-gu Suwondong on or around September 2004, and living together for 20 days at the same place, but around October 2004, the defendant's family married against the plaintiff's divorce experience, etc., and the defendant left the apartment.

C. On April 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant decided to marry again, and around that time, they were prepared for marriage while living together in the plaintiff's Daegu Suwondong apartment complex, but they did not run smoothly. The defendant notified the plaintiff on August 24, 2007, and notified the plaintiff about his objection and the two persons who started to run an apartment. The defendant got married with another person on September 2008 thereafter.

D. The defendant had no resident registration in the same domicile as the plaintiff during the above living period, and had his resident registration domicile in Gangnam-gu, Seoul until September 2008, which had been married with another person.

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff has maintained a de facto marital relationship with the defendant from May 2004. The defendant unilaterally revoked his scheduled marriage around October 13, 2004, and even thereafter repeated marriage with others on or around September 2008, and unjustly reversed a de facto marital relationship by making a marriage with others. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff property damages and consolation money equivalent to the expenses paid by the plaintiff in order to maintain a de facto marital relationship with others.

De facto marriage refers to a combination of men and women not recognized as a legally married couple because a person has an intention to marry between the parties and is engaged in a real marital life that is socially deemed legitimate, while not reporting the marriage, which is the form of the formal requirement. Therefore, to establish a de facto marriage, a person in a marital life ought to have the substance of marital life, which is objectively recognized as a marital life in terms of the social order and order of the parties, in order to establish a de facto marriage (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do4942, Jan. 30, 200; 200Da52943, Apr. 13, 2001, etc.).

However, on November 13, 2004, the plaintiff and the defendant decided to enter a marriage with the plaintiff on November 13, 2004, and leased an apartment house to the 20 days at the same time on September 2004, the plaintiff's family members living together with the defendant on October 2004, but they married against the plaintiff's divorce experience, etc. The plaintiff and the defendant living together with the defendant on August 24, 2007. The defendant did not have a resident registration at the same domicile during the above living period, and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant had a marital relationship with the plaintiff and the defendant's family members living together with the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff's family members living together with the defendant's family members were not able to have a marital relationship with the plaintiff and the defendant's family members living together with the defendant on August 14, 2007, and there is no other evidence that the defendant had a marital relationship with the plaintiff and the defendant's family members living together with the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff's social order was interrupted and non-existent.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)