[물품인도][공1996.7.1.(13),1858]
The legal nature of accepting matrimonial engagements and the relationship of attribution of ownership in the case of dissolution of marriage.
The acceptance of the matter of matrimonial engagement is accepted for the purpose of proving the establishment of matrimonial engagement and promoting the liquidation of the parties and the amount thereof. Thus, in special circumstances, such as where the recipient of the matter of matrimonial engagement has no intention to continue the marriage in good faith from the beginning of the marriage and it is recognized that the failure to continue the marriage was caused by the failure to marry, it is reasonable to authorize the duty to return the matter of matrimonial engagement, in light of the principle of good faith and the principle of equity. However, barring such special circumstances, barring any such special circumstance, it is reasonable to authorize the duty to return the matter of matrimonial engagement, in a case where the marital relationship is not established and the marriage is terminated for a considerable period of time. Thus, it is impossible to claim a return even after the marriage is terminated after the marriage is terminated, so long as the marriage continues to exist for a considerable period of time.
Articles 147, 554, and 800 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 76Meu41, 42 delivered on December 28, 1976 (Gong197, 9835 delivered on December 27, 1994) Supreme Court Decision 94Meu895 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 674)
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Park Woo-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul District Court Decision 95Na37000 delivered on December 12, 1995
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
(1) Upon admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of divorce on July 8, 191 on the ground that the plaintiff reported a marriage with the non-party 1, who is the children of the defendants, and kept the goods of this case in Germany, and was studying in Germany, and left them to the defendants. The plaintiff and the non-party 1 got married to a happy marriage. The plaintiff and the non-party 1 got into a happy marriage, and they became aware of the relationship with the plaintiff and the non-party 1's foreign male of the French nationality, and the plaintiff got separate by unilaterally returned on February 25, 1993, and the plaintiff got married to the plaintiff on the ground that the non-party 1 had committed an unlawful act against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also filed a lawsuit of divorce on the ground that the non-party 1 had violent act and her bath, and the judgment of divorce was rendered on the ground of the plaintiff's unlawful act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff's father gave his right to claim against the defendants.
(2) The acceptance of the products of matrimonial engagement is accepted for the purpose of proving the establishment of matrimonial engagement and promoting the liquidation of the parties and the quantity thereof. Thus, in special circumstances, such as where the recipient of the products has no intention to marry faithfully from the beginning of the marriage and thereby causing the strike of the marriage, it shall be reasonable to determine the duty to return the products in accordance with the principle of good faith and the principle of equity. However, barring such special circumstances, unless the marital relationship is established and the marriage is terminated for a considerable period of time, it shall not be claimed even after the marriage is terminated (see Supreme Court Decision 94Meu895 delivered on December 27, 1994). Thus, although the plaintiff and the non-party 1 did not have any special circumstance, even if the cause of the failure of marriage occurred, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as long as the ownership of the products of this case continues to exist for a period of time, it shall not be justified in the judgment of the court below.
(3) Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)