beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff and C, and around March 2015, after being aware that the marriage was to be married, access C and made C adjust the relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby causing the failure of a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damage therefrom.
2. Determination
(a) De facto marriage refers to a case where the parties have a subjective intention to marry between themselves and there is an substance of marital life that can recognize marital life in terms of the order of family order in the sense of social norms;
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da52943, Apr. 13, 2001).
On March 2013, when following the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff living together with C and formed a de facto marriage relationship with C and lived with them until February 2014. After the living period, the plaintiff and his children living together with C and decided to marry around March 2015. The following circumstances, which can be known through the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 9 and arguments, were in legal relations with E around the living period of the plaintiff's assertion. In other words, the plaintiff and C did not write off a wedding ceremony or a similar wedding, and the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint about rape, etc. around April 2015 and revoked it, it is difficult to recognize that not only the living period submitted by the plaintiff but also the facts supporting the plaintiff's marital life and there is no other evidence supporting the plaintiff's marital life, and there is no other evidence supporting the plaintiff's marital life.
The Plaintiff appears to have met the Defendant at the late-end marriage conference around December 2014. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, on January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to C a letter to adjust the relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby causing the failure of de facto marriage with the Plaintiff at that time.