2017ddle206607 Compensation ( de facto marriage reversal)

A person shall be appointed.

1. B

2. Sick:

July 17, 2018

August 14, 2018

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

As consolation money to the Plaintiff, Defendant Eul shall pay 8 million won, Defendant Byung shall jointly and severally with Defendant Eul, 4 million won out of the above money, and 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. Defendant Eul shall pay 5 million won as division of property and 5% per annum from the day after the day when the judgment of this case becomes final to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is having one woman between the former spouse and the former spouse; Defendant B is having one male woman between the former spouse and the former spouse.

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant B came to know at around 2001 that the Plaintiff’s branch and Defendant B worked in the same restaurant as Defendant B, and thereafter, the Defendant B opened the main store in Busan Dongdong-gu, which led to the Plaintiff’s frequent finding of the Plaintiff as a guest, and the Plaintiff started living at Defendant B’s house from March 2002.

C. Defendant B thought that the Plaintiff was a person who was larger in the main place of Busan Dongdong-gu, and that the Plaintiff’s assistance would be helpful in the main place of the Plaintiff’s operation, and the Defendant B did not live together.

D. The Plaintiff and Defendant B had a lot of disputes arising from the Plaintiff’s drinking, assault, medical treatment, and economic difficulties during their living together with the Plaintiff during the period of their living. Defendant B was influence with the Plaintiff and hedging, and the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant B’s wife in how to find the Plaintiff’s wife, and in the process, it was difficult to find the Defendant B’s children.

E. Defendant B, at around 2010, was the Plaintiff’s spouse when the father of the Plaintiff died, was the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the Plaintiff’s father’s seat was also replaced by the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the Plaintiff’s father’s seat was also replaced by the Plaintiff’s spouse. Defendant B participated in the Plaintiff’s date and name holiday.

F. On the other hand, the Plaintiff visited an empty site when the mother of Defendant B died and participated in 49 materials. However, the mother of Defendant B was not present on the designated date.

G. In this court's family survey, the plaintiff stated that he was "the defendant Eul re-born, and he did not report his marriage as the match." The defendant Eul tried to punish the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not have any choice but to continue the relationship with the plaintiff because he did not have any choice but did not have any choice but to compensate for another money, although he did not want to punish the plaintiff, he did not want to do so. The plaintiff was used for the plaintiff at the time of the lapse of one month from the plaintiff.

H. From August 2016, Defendant B: (a) from around 2016 to the Plaintiff, Defendant B prepared for the Defendant’s children and directors; (b) around October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff arranged the goods between the Plaintiff’s children and the directors to work.

I. On December 13, 2016, Defendant B stated that the Plaintiff and Defendant C are in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant in the first place. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a dispute as a result of the above-mentioned problem, both of which were sexual assault, and the summary order (each fine of KRW 1.5 million) was requested for formal trial, appeal and appeal, but all of which was dismissed, and the said fine became final and conclusive.

(j) Defendant B, who was aware of son to escape from the Plaintiff on the family investigation date and the date of pleading of this Court, stated that Defendant B asked Defendant C, who was aware of son, to talk about his circumstances, and asked for a false statement as if he was a de facto related person. Defendant C made a false statement upon Defendant B’s request, but Defendant C made a false statement on the part of Defendant B, but Defendant C responded to the true answer in criminal trial.

[Recognition Facts] Gap 1 through 4, 6, 7 evidence, Eul 1 through 4 evidence, Eul 1 and Eul 2, Eul 2's family investigation report, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The plaintiff began with his living together and maintained a de facto marital relationship under the premise of marriage with the defendant Eul. Since a de facto marital relationship was unjustly destroyed due to the illegal act of the defendant, the defendants are obligated to pay consolation money and damages for delay thereof. Furthermore, the defendant Eul asserts that he is obligated to pay consolation money and damages for delay.

B. Determination

1) The portion claiming consolation money

(A) Whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in de facto marital relationship under the premise of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages

De facto marriage refers to a case where 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 the social norms. Here, the intention of marriage as a requirement for the establishment of a de facto marriage refers to the agreement of the parties to engage in a community life as a couple continuously and stably. In order for them to have a substance of a marital life, the parties have continued to live together and have obtained social performance as well as a couple. Thus, the mere fact that there is a sporadic relationship between living together or a sporadic relationship cannot be deemed a de facto marriage (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3952, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.).

The facts that the plaintiff and the defendant Eul were living together for 14 years from March 2002 to October 24, 2016, and the defendant Eul attended the light investigation of the plaintiff's family or the plaintiff's father's proposal, etc. are as seen earlier.

However, the aforementioned evidence can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of oral arguments as follows: (i) the Plaintiff and Defendant B did not file a marriage report during the period of their living together; (ii) there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff and Defendant B had prepared a marriage report; (iii) the period of transfer of the Plaintiff and Defendant B to the same address on the records, such as residents, etc., to the same address is less than two years; (iv) there is no evidence to deem that there was a certain exchange between the Plaintiff’s children and the Defendant’s children, such as the Plaintiff’s attendance at the Plaintiff’s family meeting, etc., or that there was no evidence to deem that there was a marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s children, in light of the following: (iv) the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff refused to marry; and (v) the Defendant’s living together with the Plaintiff did not want to make a living alone; and (v) the Plaintiff’s living together with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s family members did not have any other objective evidence to support the Plaintiff’s living.

(B) Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff and Defendant B were in a de facto marital relationship, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants’ unlawful act was the primary reason for failure in a de facto marital relationship, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, as seen earlier, Defendant C made a false statement that Defendant C was in a de facto marital relationship with Defendant B upon the Defendant’s request.

2) Part of the claim for division of property

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and Defendant B did not recognize a de facto marital relationship. Therefore, a claim for division of property premised on resolution of a de facto marital relationship is without merit. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff and Defendant B were in a de facto marital relationship, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to determine that the Plaintiff should bear 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s current debts (5 million won) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money against the defendants and the claim for division of property against the defendant Eul is not justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges already appointed