Plaintiff

Defendant

December 4, 2009

Seoul Family Court Decision 2009Ra16684 Decided July 15, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The marriage reported between the plaintiff and the defendant on September 19, 2008 to the head of a female Eup/Myeon on September 19, 2008 is confirmed to be null

1. Applicable law;

The Plaintiff asserts that at the time of the marriage, the Defendant, who is a national of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as “the Philippines”), had no intention to marry with the Plaintiff, and sought confirmation of nullity on the ground that the actual requirements of the marriage were not satisfied. However, according to Article 36(1) of the Private International Act, as to the substantive requirements of the marriage, the law of its home country is the governing law as to each of the parties to the marriage. As to the Plaintiff, the governing law of this case is the Civil Act of the Republic of Korea and the Act on the Marriage in the Philippines in relation to the Defendant. However, there was no submission of data on the marriage law of the Philippines to this court, and no other method exists

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a male of Korean nationality, and the defendant is a female of Korean nationality of the Philippines.

B. On August 26, 2008, the Plaintiff is married in the Defendant and the Philippines, and on September 19, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted a marriage certificate to the head of Si/Eup/Myeon and completed the marriage report.

C. The defendant entered Korea on November 1, 2008 and started a married life with the plaintiff. However, the defendant left Korea on December 4, 2008 only one month, and there is no consciousness until now.

D. The Defendant left a letter to the effect that “I have married to support their families and should pay money in Korea” to the Plaintiff at the same time on the day following the day on which the Plaintiff and the Defendant had been traveling in Jeju-do for a certain period of three-day days.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16 and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff asserts that the marriage in this case is null and void, since the defendant entered Korea only without the intention of marriage, and only for the purpose of punishing money.

According to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff made a lot of efforts to maintain the marital life and that the defendant did not have any detailed consideration for the defendant. However, during the month after the defendant entered Korea, the plaintiff and the defendant lived together with the normal husband and wife for one month, and the defendant living in Jeju-do at the same time before the departure, and even if the defendant left the place, the defendant's duty to support his family in the continuance and home country of the marital relationship with the plaintiff is considered to have reached a conflict, and it is difficult to view the above evidence alone to have been married with the plaintiff for the purpose of entering Korea only without the intention of marriage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Ahn Young-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-soon