[약혼불이행으로인한위자료등][집24(3)행,86;공1977.2.1.(553),9835]
Whether the responsible person with negligence in the dissolution of a matrimonial engagement has the right to claim the return of the deposited goods of the matrimonial engagement provided by him/her.
The acceptance of the products of matrimonial engagement is similar to the donation under the conditions of rescission of the failure to marry, or there is no right to make a claim for the return of the products of matrimonial engagement provided by the parties as responsible for negligence concerning the cancellation of the matrimonial engagement.
Claimant
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1
Seoul High Court Decision 76Reu41,42 delivered on August 25, 1976
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for a final appeal lawsuit shall be borne by the person against whom an appeal is filed.
(1)The grounds of appeal by the appellant are examined.
(A) As to the first ground for appeal:
The court below acknowledged the facts based on the evidences of the city and thereby found that the claimant (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "responer") are responsible for the cancellation of a matrimonial engagement between the claimant (hereinafter referred to as the "responer") and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "responer") and the "responer") are "responer" and "respons" are not responsible for the cancellation of the matrimonial engagement, and considering the evidences of the court below's ruling that only part of the claimant's claim amount of consolation money was cited, the court below's above fact-finding is acceptable and there is no error of law that found the facts to be erroneous in the rules of evidence
(B) On the second ground of appeal:
Based on the records, the court below rejected the allegation of "respondent" that the appellant agreed to return the above case to "respondent" on the ground that there is no evidence to support the argument, and the acceptance of the matter of matrimonial engagement is similar to the donation under the condition that the marriage is not completed, but the person who is responsible for the cancellation of the matrimonial engagement, such as "respondent", stated that he did not actively have the right to claim the return of the matter of matrimonial engagement, and dismissed the claim for return of the matter of the case of "respondent". There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the legal nature of the matter of matrimonial engagement. The argument is groundless.
(2) Therefore, the appeal by “respondent” is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)