2014Dhap 303068 Compensation ( de facto marriage reversal)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

May 21, 2015

June 25, 2015

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 18,574,00, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from June 4, 2014 to June 25, 2015, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. (b) The Defendant shall deliver movable property in attached Form.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant’s delivery date of KRW 58,574,00 to the Plaintiff and a copy of the instant complaint shall be from the next day.

The amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of full payment shall be paid, and the movable property in attached Form shall be delivered.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence of 3 through 5 and Eul evidence of 1 (including evidence of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

A. On September 2012, the Plaintiff, upon the Plaintiff’s introduction of female birth, came back to the Defendant’s first or approximately 2-3 months from the Defendant’s rejection. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, with the Plaintiff’s continued efforts, came back again in mind on August 2013, with a view to marriage around 2013.

B. On January 26, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) followed a funeral ceremony between family members on April 26, 2014; (b) promoted marriage on April 26, 2014, by setting the marriage ceremony; (c) on February 2014, the Plaintiff, with the support of the Plaintiff’s parents, she was preparing for marriage by leasing an apartment house in Seoul** Gu**.

C. In the process of the above marriage preparation, the Defendant did not reach the age, but did not prepare only the old-age marriage house with the help of his parents, and reported a large number of dependences on the family members or their relatives to the company. The Defendant started meetings for marriage with the Plaintiff.

D. On March 2014, the Defendant told the Plaintiff that he would be married, but continued to prepare for marriage with the Plaintiff’s acquisition. On April 2014, 2014, the Defendant decided to continue marriage with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s father’s acquisition, even if he could not be married to the Plaintiff.

E. Meanwhile, around April 20, 2014, the Defendant 200: (a) took pictures of 2 degree on hand, hand, hand, body, etc.; (b) however, on around 22, the Plaintiff, who was asked by message, about the delivery of mixed water, etc. to enter the same place, was more dissatisfied with the Defendant’s idea that the Defendant would have engaged in her mixed water or marriage preparation procedures; and (c) for the final inspection of marriage, herman refused the Plaintiff’s request, and did not look at the Plaintiff in the future of the Defendant’s home.

F. On April 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) as scheduled to go through a marriage hall, is entering the marriage ceremony with the Plaintiff; and (b) is 2014.

5. up to January 1, 200, the Defendant sent a fluorial attitude in the marriage-type, and the Defendant rejected the conversation with the Plaintiff during the marriage-type travel aircraft.

G. The first day at the new mixed tour, the Defendant, while carrying out the mixed shopping, returned to the hotel room at the latest night. The Plaintiff, who was under the influence of the Plaintiff’s emotional testimony with the Defendant, was a hotel staff member and vagabonds, and the Defendant returned to the hotel room on the following day. The Plaintiff sent a message to the Defendant during the period of the new mixed tour with several first day of the night and the sending time together. During the period of the new mixed tour, the Defendant continued to carry out the mixed shopping without all answers. The Defendant sent a hotel room at the night and sent a different night from the Plaintiff, and returned to Korea as soon as the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff came back to the airport immediately following the day.

H. After returning to Korea, the Plaintiff and the Defendant exchanged each other’s message on the premise that the marital relationship between both parties has disappearedd, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 16, 2014.

2. Determination

(a) Responsibility for failure in a de facto marriage;

According to the above facts, a de facto marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be deemed to have reached a failure to the extent that it can not be observed during the short period of marriage and the short period of marriage travel.

Furthermore, as long as the male and female who grow up in different environments are married and a new family is achieved, they should make every effort to achieve a smooth family by understanding and respecting the other party's position and difficulties rather than paying their own thoughts, taking into account. Considering all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant was unable to move by video in the course of the preparation for marriage and the marriage, or that the Plaintiff was drinking at the hotel staff and the Plaintiff was in a fluence, it is reasonable to deem that the responsibility for failure in a de facto marriage for the following reasons exists to the Defendant.

In other words, the defendant, even though he decided to marry with the plaintiff in the situation of considering the marriage of the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's character or economic power that he thought in his meeting, has refused the plaintiff's request for dialogue and has set a minimum obligation required in the marriage relation, such as accepting the request for conversation from the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff does not appear in mind, and the defendant's attitude has completely obstructed the way to resolve the conflict with the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is responsible for the failure of a de facto marriage relationship in this case because he was married to the plaintiff when the plaintiff demanded a marriage before he was married to the outside her without communication or his marriage. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's communication is not smooth to the extent that it falls short of the ordinary level, and as long as there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff was involved in the defendant's intention by coercion or deception, even if the plaintiff continued to enter into the marriage, and even if the plaintiff continued to persuade the defendant, it cannot be viewed that any error was caused by the failure of a de facto marriage relationship in this case.

Therefore, under the following, we examine the damages (property damages or consolation money) and restitution that the plaintiff is seeking on the premise that the defendant is responsible for the failure of the de facto marriage of this case.

B. Even if a marital relationship is established, where a spouse is unable to be deemed to have achieved a meaningful marital life as a marital community, in light of the good faith principle or the principle of equity, the spouse, who is not the spouse liable for failure of the marital relationship, may seek compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of money granted under the pretext of marriage, such as a deposit before the marriage, etc., or the amount of money given under the pretext of the deposit money, etc., or expenses paid for the marriage, such as marriage, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da50303, May 27, 2005; 200Meu1257,1264, Nov. 14, 2003; 200Meu4586, May 14, 1996, etc.).

As seen earlier, a de facto marital life between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is to be settled in a short period before having a substance as a de facto marital community. As such, the Defendant is a responsible party for the failure of the de facto marital relationship, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the following expenses incurred in the preparation for marriage, new marriage travel, and marital life as compensation for damages, for the expenses incurred in establishing and maintaining the establishment of the de facto marital relationship in this case and in proximate causal relation.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should bear only half of the expenses because the new divorce travel is a trip between the prime and the Defendant. However, since the full amount of the expenses for the new divorce travel is deemed to be unnecessary for the de facto marriage relationship that resulted in the failure in the short term, it is reasonable to view that the total amount of the expenses is the amount of damages. Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 11, which is written before the month when the marriage is entered, around March 22, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased and delivered to the Defendant a well-known movable in attached Form (hereinafter “the movable of this case”). In light of the timing of purchase and use of the movable of this case, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is obligated to deliver the movable of this case to the Plaintiff as a wedding. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the movable of this case.

C. The defendant's duty to pay mental consolation money

As seen earlier, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the failure of a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s de facto marital relationship due to the Defendant’s above mistake. As such, considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, the period of de facto marriage, and the circumstances leading to the failure of marriage, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant as KRW 10,00,000.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at a rate of 18,574,00 won (property damages of KRW 8,574,00 + consolation money of KRW 10,000 + 0,000) and damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from June 4, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the extent that it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation, as sought by the Plaintiff, from June 25, 2015, until June 25, 2015, and from the next day to the day of full payment. The Defendant is obligated to deliver the movables of this case to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges by the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Jae-hwan

Judge No. Doingk

A person shall be appointed.