2016dboard21237 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

A person shall be appointed.

Busan

Attorney Lee Do-young

A person shall be appointed.

Current unknown whereabouts;

Last Address Busan

May 16, 2017

May 30, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision of this case and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

From August 200, the Plaintiff maintained a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant from around August 200 to maintain a de facto marital relationship. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant destroyed a de facto marital relationship on a daily basis, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the said data to the Plaintiff following the reversal of a de facto marital relationship.

2. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances such as de facto divorce, a married couple’s de facto marital relationship entered into with a third party may not be protected equivalent to a legal divorce, barring special circumstances such as a de facto divorce. A claim for damages or pro rata property following the resolution of de facto marital relationship is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Meu530, Sept. 20, 1996; 94S30, Jul. 3, 1995).

However, according to the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding with the head of Busan District Office, it is recognized that the defendant filed a report of marriage with 00 August 29, 1985, which the plaintiff asserted that he commenced a de facto marital relationship, and maintained the legal marriage until now. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the legal marriage between the defendant and boom was in a de facto marital relationship, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, even if the plaintiff and the defendant were in a de facto marital relationship, the plaintiff cannot claim damages following the resolution of the de facto marital relationship.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

Judges Park Young-young