1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On April 19, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant lived together with the husband and wife in the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant apartment”), but did not report the marriage.

The plaintiff and the defendant were frequently in conflict from the early stage of de facto marriage, and the conflict from 2016 became more serious, and the plaintiff was unable to assault the defendant in the course of the final dispute.

On February 2, 2017, the Defendant had been coming into the apartment of this case, and on February 22, 2017, filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff based on the wrongful destruction of a de facto marriage.

(The Daejeon Family Court 2017ddan50842). The plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the defendant for damages.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that a de facto marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had no right to occupy the apartment of this case, even though they did not have a right to possess the apartment of this case, the Defendant still left their own house, etc. on the apartment of this case and occupied it at the same time. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver and leave the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff, the owner of this case.

Judgment

The defendant knew of the entrance number of the apartment of this case, the fact that he kept part of his movable property, such as household appliances and furnitures, in the apartment of this case after the de facto marriage, after the de facto marriage, and the fact that the defendant had been rarely or twice to manage the said apartment of this case for the management of the said house is not a dispute between the parties.

However, at present, the defendant seems not to reside in the apartment of this case, and the defendant does not seem to have exclusively recognized and managed the entrance number, and each video of No. 5-1 through No. 5 is still stored in the apartment of this case, even at the time of closing argument.