Common Law Marriage Breakdown Liability Case Review

Even cohabitation without a marriage registration tends to be recognized as a common law marriage and granted legal protection when certain requirements are met. The case we review today involves an approximately 11-year common law marriage that collapsed due to one spouse's repeated suspicion and violent behavior. The Changwon District Court ruling 2017Deudan12448 clearly illustrates the typical standards for determining who bears responsibility for the breakdown of a common law marriage. Having handled divorce and inheritance cases, I frequently see disputes over fault in common law breakdowns, and this precedent clearly shows that the at-fault spouse cannot easily escape liability regardless of whether a marriage was registered.

Plaintiff A and Defendant D cohabited and maintained a common law marriage for approximately 11 years from around 2006. Over time, the defendant began suspecting the plaintiff of infidelity, and quarrels became frequent. Eventually, on March 15, 2017, both parties reached the point where the common law marriage had completely broken down. The plaintiff and defendant each filed a principal action and counterclaim seeking 20 million KRW in compensation for emotional distress. The 11-year cohabitation period is typically considered sufficient for common law recognition, allowing the compensation claim arising from the breakdown to be addressed head-on. Unlike cases where the recognition itself is disputed, this case focused on who is responsible for the breakdown rather than on recognition.

The court found the defendant responsible for the breakdown based on the following circumstances.

• The defendant repeatedly suspected the plaintiff of infidelity, generating disputes
• He repeatedly engaged in violent behavior and humiliating language while drinking
• He was fined for assault
• He got drunk at the plaintiff's restaurant, broke bottles, and caused a disturbance

These circumstances were assessed as going beyond mere marital conflict, reflecting one spouse's consistent destruction of the relationship. The accompanying criminal record (fine for assault) added objective weight to the proof. In common law breakdown compensation cases, accompanying criminal records typically reduce the proof burden significantly.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the plaintiff committed infidelity with another man and unilaterally expelled him. The court rejected all of the defendant's claims based on the following.

• The frequency of messages and meeting places between the plaintiff and the other man cannot be regarded as infidelity
• The plaintiff's act of expelling the defendant from the home had justifiable reasons because the defendant's suspicion and violent behavior preceded it

Infidelity allegations are typically the most contested issue in third-party damages litigation, but proof was lacking in this case. This reaffirms the typical tendency of our precedents not to recognize infidelity based on mere suspicion or contact patterns. Furthermore, the assessment that expulsion from the home was justifiable shows the typical view that self-protective conduct akin to self-defense does not in reverse become a fault ground for dissolving a common law marriage.

The court found that the defendant must pay 10 million KRW in compensation to the plaintiff, considering the period of common law marriage, the circumstances of the breakdown, and the degree of responsibility. The plaintiff's principal claim was partially granted, and the defendant's counterclaim was entirely dismissed. The granted amount, about half of the claim, is not significantly different from the typical range for common law breakdown compensation. More than the amount itself, the precedential meaning lies in the clear assignment of compensation liability for common law breakdown.

• Even without marriage registration, cohabitation maintaining the substance of a marital relationship for a certain period is protected as a common law marriage
• A spouse who broke the relationship through fault grounds such as suspicion, violence, or humiliating language cannot easily escape compensation liability
• Infidelity allegations must be proven through concrete evidence such as messages and meeting places, and they tend not to be recognized based on abstract suspicion alone
• If one party's violent behavior preceded, the other party's act of dissolving the common law marriage may be assessed as having justifiable reasons

When handling common law breakdown cases, I prioritize reviewing the following materials.

• Communication and financial records showing the period of cohabitation
• Circumstantial materials showing that family and acquaintances recognized the parties as a couple
• If there was assault or verbal abuse: medical certificates, emergency reports, transcripts
• Circumstances indicating an economic community (joint accounts, lease contracts, business partnership)
• For infidelity allegations: messages and movement records

The distribution of materials varies by case, but having them organized from the start typically makes the case proceed much more smoothly.

In addition to compensation, the following rights are typically reviewed together when dissolving a common law marriage.

• Right to claim property division for assets formed during the common law marriage period
• Settlement of debts incurred during cohabitation
• If there are children, parental rights, custody, and child support
• Criminal procedures related to domestic violence, restraining orders, and protective measures

Since some of these may need to be claimed separately from the compensation case, it is typically more efficient to organize them in an integrated manner from the start.

• Securing safety is the top priority in the early stages of the case. If violence is ongoing, please obtain a medical certificate and emergency report records first
• If the existence of the common law marriage itself may be contested, preserve all everyday traces of the cohabitation relationship
• If infidelity allegations are anticipated, it is typically safer to back up messages and movement records
• If there are children, organize materials related to the parenting environment

Q. How is a common law marriage recognized? A. It tends to be recognized when there is an intent to marry, when the substance of joint marital life is recognized for a certain period, and when the relationship is socially recognized as a marriage. Factors considered include the cohabitation period, recognition by family and acquaintances, and the formation of an economic community.

Q. How is the compensation amount for a common law breakdown determined? A. The court determines it at its discretion, considering the period of common law marriage, the circumstances of the breakdown, the severity of fault, the degree of emotional distress, and the financial capacity of both parties. Around 10 million KRW is typically granted in cases like this, but the amount can vary depending on the severity and duration of the violence.

Q. Is property division possible in a common law marriage? A. If the common law marriage is recognized, assets formed through the joint efforts of the parties during the common law period typically can be subject to property division claims. However, the claim method and statute of limitations may differ from a legal marriage, so a separate review is needed.

Get a chat consultation now

If you are considering dissolving a common law marriage, the absence of a marriage registration does not block your rights claims. However, the success or failure of the case tends to depend on the materials that objectively prove the existence of the common law marriage and the fault of the breakdown, so please calmly organize materials such as messages, medical certificates, and witness statements first. It is typically safer to review compensation along with property division and children's issues comprehensively.

Get a chat consultation now

Written by: Attorney Yoon Jisang. Reviewed 2026-05-30

Disclaimer: This article is a general summary of the Changwon District Court 2017Deudan12448 precedent for accessible explanation, not legal advice for a specific case. Facts and conclusions vary by case, so please consult an attorney directly on specific matters.