Is the protection of a de facto marriage entered into with a third party while a legal marriage is in existence;

Even if one of the married couple under the law is in a state of being married for a long time without a long time when one of the married couple goes back, the other couple’s actual marital life with the intention of marriage shall not be granted protection equivalent to a legal divorce by recognizing it as a de facto marriage, unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 800, 839-2, and 843 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 62Da631, Nov. 15, 1962 (No.1095Ha, 2987) (No.247, Jul. 6, 1965) 65Meu12, Jul. 6, 1965 (No.13B civils 22) (Gong1995Ha, 2987)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 93Reu1020 delivered on October 20, 1994

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant was married with the non-party on March 23, 1979 when he was living as a Madow, but the non-party was married without permission on October 20, 1983 when he was married to the non-party on March 23, 1979, but the non-party was also married to the non-party on October 20, 1983 after the non-party was also placed to the non-party, and the non-party was actually married to the non-party on the house owned by the defendant since November of that year without marriage, and the non-party was actually married to the non-party on the house owned by the defendant, and the non-party was in a marital relationship with the non-party on the family register without permission and the defendant was in a marital relationship with the non-party on November 7, 1989 after the divorce judgment became final and conclusive on July 28, 199. The non-party's de facto marital relationship was established between the non-party and the non-party's de facto marital relationship.

In light of the records and relevant evidence, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of litigation.

Although one side of a married couple’s husband and wife’s husband and wife’s husband and wife’s husband and wife’s husband and wife’s husband and wife’s husband and wife’s husband and wife’s husband and wife are in a real marital life with the intention of marriage with a third party, barring special circumstances, they cannot be admitted as a de facto marriage and grant protection equivalent to legal divorce. In other words, it is impossible to recognize a de facto marital relationship with a third party again in the absence of legal marriage with a third party. In this regard, the lower court determined that a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff was established even before a marriage between the Defendant and the non-party is resolved by a divorce trial shall be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to a de facto marital relationship: Provided, That the lower court determined that, in addition to the above judgment, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the non-party was a de facto marital relationship with which legal protection is legally protected after the Defendant divorced with the non-party, in light of the above facts, and such determination was partially erroneous at the time of the lower judgment’s reasoning.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The court below's decision that it is reasonable for the defendant to pay 50,000 won to the plaintiff, considering the various circumstances in its reasoning after determining the value of the property subject to division of property as 113,34,000 won, is just in comparison with the records, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff's division ratio is so short that it is against the principle of equity. There is no ground for argument.

3. Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)