[1] Whether protection corresponding to legal divorce is necessary in a case where there are special circumstances such as a de facto marital status prior to legal marriage even if a de facto marital relationship is a de facto marital relationship (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a person in a de facto marital relationship falls under a “spouse in a de facto marital relationship” under the special terms and conditions for limited driving

[1] A de facto marriage is established when the parties have a subjective intention to marry between themselves, and objectively, in terms of the social order, there is a substance of marital life that can recognize marital life. Although our legal system has a provision prohibiting middle marriage by adopting a partial wife system, the time of violation is not provided as a ground for nullity of marriage but only as a ground for annulment of marriage (Article 816 of the Civil Act), so it remains effective until the revocation of a marriage even though it falls under middle marriage, and this does not change from the middle marital relationship. In addition, even if a de facto marital relationship is a de facto marital relationship, if there are special circumstances, such as the fact that the legal marriage prior to marriage is in fact divorced, protection equivalent to legal divorce may be necessary.

[2] The case holding that a spouse Eul who is in a de facto marital relationship under the automobile insurance contract under the special terms and conditions for limited driving of the married couple Gap, who is a member of the married couple Eul who is in a substantive marital relationship with the doctor of marriage before the marriage of the legal spouse is not settled yet

[1] Article 816 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 816 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Meu1584 delivered on March 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1752) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da52943 Delivered on April 13, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1129) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5075 Delivered on February 22, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 830)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm New Daily, Attorneys Cho Yong-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Na370 Decided July 14, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 2, a Mongolian, completed the marriage report with the Nonparty on January 1, 2001, but the Nonparty was missing at home, and maintained de facto marital relationship while living together from January 2003. Defendant 1 entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on September 2005 with respect to the instant automobile. According to the special terms and conditions of the said insurance contract, Defendant 2 stated that the spouse of the registered insured refers to a spouse or a spouse in a de facto marital or de facto marital relationship. Defendant 2, a person who operated the said insured automobile on November 10, 2005 and completed the marriage report, and Defendant 2 cannot be viewed as being in a de facto marital relationship with the Nonparty on the ground that it cannot be viewed as a legitimate de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff on the ground that it did not constitute a de facto marital accident under the law and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate de facto marital relationship.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In light of the characteristics of the general transaction terms and the insurance system, the interpretation of the insurance terms and conditions should be interpreted objectively and uniformly on the basis of the possibility of average customer's understanding, not on the basis of the intended purpose or intent of individual parties, unlike the general legal act.

A de facto marriage is established when the parties have a subjective intention to marry between themselves, and there is a substance of marital life that can recognize marital life in terms of the order of family in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Meu1584, Mar. 28, 1995; 2000Da52943, Apr. 13, 2001). Although our legal system has a provision prohibiting double marriage by adopting a partial one-day care system, it is not provided for the time of violation as a ground for annulment of marriage, but it remains effective until the marriage is revoked (Article 816 of the Civil Act). This does not change because it is a de facto marital marriage (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5075, Feb. 22, 2002).

In this case, even based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party, who is the legal spouse of defendant 2, was missing at his house and therefore his marriage was de facto divorced, and the defendants are in a de facto marital relationship with the substance of marriage sufficient to recognize marital life. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the defendants' de facto marital relationship constitutes a case where a de facto marital relationship with the substance of marriage is not subject to protection equivalent to legal confusion. Furthermore, in the case where a de facto marital relationship is formed and the status of an insured party is confirmed as a result of the formation of a legal relationship with an insurance underwriting pursuant to a contract as in this case, and the existence of a de facto marital relationship itself is denied solely on the ground that a party in a de facto marital relationship is simply a de facto marital relationship, is in a de facto marital relationship, goes against the legal principles as to the interpretation principles of the insurance terms and conditions as seen earlier (where

Therefore, the lower court determined to the effect that Defendant 2 cannot be legally protected equivalent to a legal divorce on the ground that Defendant 2 was in a de facto marital relationship, thereby not falling under “spouse in a de facto marital relationship” under the special terms and conditions of this case, is practically subject to the interpretation of the special terms and conditions of this case by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a marital relationship and the

Supreme Court Decision 94Da36704 delivered on May 26, 1995, cited by the court below, is related to the overlapping parties that cannot be legally protected because they violate good morals and other social order, and it is not appropriate to invoke them in this case.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)