(a) the agreement not to file a divorce with the verification of the divorce by agreement and the rule of experience that the declaration of divorce would not be made;

(b) Whether there is legal interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship with the deceased.

A. Generally, in a case where a husband and wife obtains confirmation of divorce by agreement from a family court, it shall be deemed that the husband and wife has the intention to conclude the divorce report, and it shall be deemed that the agreement is made in advance with only confirmation of divorce by agreement and not to file a divorce report.

B. Seeking a trial for confirmation of existence of a marital relationship in the past cannot be said to be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions relating to the current rights or legal status, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation. The same is more true where one of the parties in a marital relationship actually dies.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 2 of the Family Trial Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Meu4 delivered on June 23, 1964 (Article 228 (26) 443 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 228 (1) 12 ① 182 of the Civil Procedure Act) 75Meu28 delivered on March 22, 197 (Article 840 (46) 151 of the Civil Act, Article 840 (46) 11476 house 11476 house 25Nu32 559No 1005 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Article 2 (1) 296 of the Civil Trial Act)

Claimant

Prosecutor

1. The claimant's primary claim shall be dismissed and the conjunctive claim shall be dismissed; and

2. The cost of a trial shall be borne by the claimant.

The primary claim: The divorce reported to the head of Seoul Shi-ro on March 7, 1985 between the claimant and the deceased except the one shall be revoked.

Preliminary Claim: It is confirmed that the marital relationship existed between the claimant and the other party 1, from March 7, 1985 to October 16 of the same year.

1. The main claim is examined;

According to the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 (No. 1) presumed to have been established as an official document, the claimant was subject to the non-party 1 (the applicant was born on Sep. 8, 1943, omitted) who completed the marriage report on Jun. 12, 1970. On Mar. 7, 1985, the applicant filed a divorce report by agreement such as the content of the claim and the primary claim, and the deceased non-party 1 can be recognized as the fact that he died on Oct. 16, 1985.

As the primary cause of claim of this case, the claimant was responsible for the obligation of approximately KRW 30,00,00 while managing the task from March 1, 1983 to May 1984. In order to protect the creditor's property, the deceased who became aware of this fact presented a confirmation of divorce by agreement with the family court and presented the confirmation to the creditor of the claimant as evidence that he was divorced by agreement with the claimant, but at the same time, reported the divorce by agreement with the family court even though he was confirmed as not to report the divorce by agreement. This constitutes the time when the claimant declared his intention of divorce by fraud, and thus, the deceased's claim for the revocation of the divorce is asserted.

Therefore, there is evidence as shown in the above argument by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the claimant, and there is evidence of the non-party 2 and 3, but in general, in case where the couple obtains the confirmation of divorce by agreement with the claimant, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff has the intention to complete the divorce report, and it shall be an exceptional day to conclude the divorce report in advance. The non-party 2's testimony made the statement that the plaintiff would not report the divorce from the above deceased, and the non-party 3's testimony made the statement that the plaintiff would not report the divorce from the above deceased. After March 7, 1985, the witness was the incidental of the above claimant and the above deceased, and there was no statement that the plaintiff and the above deceased had been living together and divorced from them. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above plaintiff did not report the divorce by agreement with the claimant and did not report the divorce, and there is no other evidence to prove that the divorce report was completed even if they did not know the claimant.

2. The preliminary claims are examined; and

As the ancillary cause of this case, the claimant, after completing the divorce report with the above deceased on March 7, 1985, filed a judgment on confirmation that there was a de facto marital relationship between the claimant and the deceased during the above period, by asserting that the above deceased had maintained a de facto marital relationship, such as living together at the same house and raising his children jointly, as before divorce, until the deceased died on October 16 of the same year.

Therefore, it is obvious that the above deceased is seeking confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship in the past that has already been terminated due to the death of the deceased. As such, seeking adjudication for confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship in the past cannot be deemed the most effective means to eliminate the risk or apprehension of the present rights or legal status of the claimant, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 75Meu28, Mar. 22, 197). This is more true in cases where a party in a marital relationship has already died, so the claimant's preliminary claim is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Therefore, the claimant's primary claim shall be dismissed without merit, and the conjunctive claim shall be dismissed, and the costs of the preliminary claim shall be assessed against the claimant in the judgment as ordered.

Each administrative patent judge's two standards (Presiding Judge)