Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Dong-sik et al.

Attorney Park Ra-young

2. D.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

A. The primary purport of the claim is to confirm that the marriage reported between the plaintiff and the defendant to the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City on July 24, 2008 is null and void.

B. Preliminary claim: The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced. The plaintiff shall be designated as the person in parental authority of the principal of the case and the defendant shall be respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

The plaintiff's main claim is examined.

A. Even if one spouse prepared a marriage report, if the other spouse obtained the consent or consent of the other party, or there was an intention to marry to the other party, the marriage report by one spouse is valid. In addition, even if one spouse unilaterally reported the marriage after the divorce, if the other spouse unilaterally reported the marriage, it can be said that the other spouse had the intention to marry or ratified the invalid marriage.

B. In this case, first, we examine whether the report of marriage in this case was made by the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the following circumstances revealed according to the above recognition, i.e., the witness column of the report of marriage in this case, the name of the plaintiff E and the defendant's mother F, which had been known about the divorce of the plaintiff and the defendant at the time, are recorded and sealed and signed, and the contents of the statement are false. In addition, in the plaintiff's telephone number column of the husband, the mobile phone number number used by the defendant at the time was stated, and the defendant's relation was still in separate state in the report of marriage in this case on July 24, 2008, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's intention of marriage in this case was null and void without the plaintiff's consent to marriage in this case, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's report of marriage in this case was about about August 12, 2008.

C. Next, in order to determine whether the Plaintiff confirmed the above-mentioned marital relationship or whether it was null and void, the Plaintiff should have actually formed a marital relationship consistent with the report of null and void marriage, and the parties have continued the marital relationship without objection. The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff still entered a house at the end of the week while maintaining the marital relationship with the Defendant, and even during the management and disposition of the property, it appears that the Plaintiff did not have any change in the level of KRW 3 million agreed upon with the Defendant at the time of the above marital relationship with the Defendant at the time of the above marital relationship. However, it appears that the Plaintiff did not have any change in the above-mentioned marital relationship with the Defendant’s director at the time of the above-mentioned marital relationship with the Defendant 2, and it appears that it was inappropriate for the Plaintiff to have reported the above marital relationship with the Defendant 1, who purchased the above-mentioned marital relationship with the Defendant at the time of the above report of marriage, for the purpose of 1000 won and 200 others.

D. Therefore, the report of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant to the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City on July 24, 2008 between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void because the report of marriage between the parties constitutes a case of marriage without agreement between the parties. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim seeking confirmation of nullity is reasonable, and the defendant's defense that the plaintiff ratified the null and void marriage

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Senior Professor

Judges Min Il-young