The case holding that a de facto marriage cannot be seen as a de facto marriage and is only an overlapping relationship.

Even though the claimant who had been the first spouse had a marital relationship with the respondent who had a de facto marital relationship, and has been divorced from the husband during that period, if the respondent had been married with another woman immediately after the death of the wife, it cannot be said that there was an agreement between the claimant and the respondent on the reservation of marriage, or that there was a de facto marital relationship, and that there was a mere overlapping relationship.

Article 806 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Meu14 delivered on September 20, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 4330 delivered on July 6, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 66Meu14 delivered on September 20, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 4330 delivered on July 6, 196, Supreme Court Decision 13Du22 delivered on September 20, 196, Supreme Court Decision 806Da597 delivered on September 20, 2000)

Claimant

appellees

Daegu District Court of the first instance (76D42 Judgment) Dong Branch of the District Court (76D42)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the claimant.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

The respondent shall pay 5,00,000 won to the claimant and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the next day of the service of the written appeal on this case to the full payment.

The trial costs are the judgment that the defendant bears the burden of both the first and second trials and the declaration of provisional execution.

The appellant and the respondent came to know from November 1, 1967 that they agreed to marry with each other for three years, and they agreed to marry with 1 other than her husband who is the former husband, and if they come to be divorced from 1,000 after the marriage between the claimant and the respondent, the respondent agreed to pay the living expenses to the applicant and continued living together for nine years until November 27, 1975. The respondent was married to 2,000 on December 1975, and the respondent failed to enter into a marriage contract with the claimant and neglected the law of de facto marriage, so the respondent is liable for compensation for damages caused thereby.

It is difficult to believe that some testimony of the respondent 3, 4, 5 and 6 other than the defendant 2 were made in accordance with the plaintiff's assertion. There is no other evidence to prove the establishment of the defendant 2, Gap 1, 1, 3 Eul, 4, 4 Eul 2, 4-1, 6 Eul 6-1, 6-1, 8-1, 8-1, 8-1, 6-2, 3-1, 9-1, 6-2, 9-2, 9-1, 3-1, 6-2, 9-1, 3-1, 9-1, 6-2, 9-1, 3-1, 6-2, 9-1, 3-1, 6-2, 9-1, 6-1 or 3 (each judgment), 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, and 9-1, 6-2, respectively.

According to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement between the claimant and the respondent on the reservation of marriage, and the relationship between the claimant and the respondent cannot be deemed as a de facto marital relationship, and it is recognized that there was a simple overlapping relationship.

Therefore, the claimant's claim of this case cannot be claimed consolation money on the ground of the reversal of such overlapping relationship. Thus, the claimant's claim of this case should be dismissed on the ground of the ground of the reasons. The judgment below is just in conclusion, and the claimant's appeal is without merit, and the appeal cost is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)