South Korean court grants legal protection to same-sex union in 'homewrecker' suit

A South Korean court has recognized a same-sex union as a domestic partnership akin to de facto marriage, entitling it to legal protection. The Seoul Central District Court overturned a lower court's decision, ordering a third party to pay 10 million won (US$6,500) in damages to a woman whose same-sex partner had an affair.

“

Their relationship was not just a romantic pairing, but a psychological, physical, and financial union with both sides committed to getting married. Thus, we can recognize that the two formed a domestic partnership analogous to de facto marriage.

The court described the relationship between the plaintiff and her former partner as a committed union, not merely a romantic pairing, encompassing psychological, physical, and financial aspects with the intention of marriage. This domestic partnership, the court stated, merits legal protection.

This ruling is seen as the first time a lower court has applied a 2024 Supreme Court precedent that deemed refusing a same-sex partner dependent status on state health insurance as sexual orientation discrimination. The court clarified that recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships as interests meriting legal protection is a separate issue from whether same-sex relationships constitute legal or de facto marriages, both requiring separate discussions.

“

A domestic partnership analogous to de facto marriage that has formed between two individuals of the same sex should be regarded as an interest that merits protection under the law.

The plaintiff and her partner lived together and had their families' recognition, building a shared economic life. Their relationship ended when the partner began an affair with a colleague. The court acknowledged that the third party's actions could disrupt their relationship, thus warranting damages for alienation of affection.

“

While the plaintiff and her partner, as a same-sex couple, are unable to get married, it can surely be acknowledged that the defendant, by having an affair with [the plaintiff’s partner], was capable of wrecking their relationship.