Busan Address

Busan District Court

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Busan Address

Busan District Court

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

Comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), the entry in the family investigation report, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant prepared a marriage report at will on January 2016 *, the plaintiff's identification card and seal kept in the house *, and submitted it to the head of Busan 00 head of the Gu, and filed a marriage report (hereinafter referred to as "the report of the marriage of this case"). The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant on the grounds that the defendant filed the report of the marriage of this case without the plaintiff's consent, for the reason that the plaintiff filed the report of the marriage of this case, he/she was forged and exercised private documents, false entry in public electronic records and records, and the fact that the defendant was suspended from indictment on May 27, 2016.

According to the above facts of recognition, the report of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant of this case constitutes a case where there is no agreement between the parties to marry, and thus, the report of marriage of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 815 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion

2. Ratification of invalid acts;

As to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless, even if the marriage declaration of this case is null and void, since the plaintiff explicitly expressed his intention of ratification on the marriage declaration of this case which became null and void thereafter.

In light of the above facts, even if one spouse unilaterally reported a marriage after the divorce, it shall be deemed that the other spouse had the intention to marry or has ratified an null and void marriage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Meu731, Nov. 21, 1995). In full view of the following: (a) evidence No. 1; (b) the entry of evidence No. 2 in the family affairs report; (c) the entry of evidence No. 2 in the family affairs report; and (d) the overall purport of oral arguments, the Plaintiff withdrawn the above punishment after the marriage; (d) the Defendant was living in a de facto marital relationship from around 2012 to the date; (e) the Defendant was living in a residential area* the agreement concluded with a foreign tenant; and (e) the Plaintiff’s family members were entered as joint lessee; and (e) the Plaintiff’s family members were considered to have been aware of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to marriage by taking account of the following facts: (e) the Plaintiff’s child’s participation in the marriage, including the Plaintiff’s family members.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is eventually without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.