[1] Requirements for validity of marriage

[2] The case holding that the marriage is null and void

[1] In order for a marriage to be effective, there must be an agreement between the parties to enter into a marriage, and such agreement of marriage should exist at the time of reporting the marriage.

[2] The case holding that a marriage by the above report is null and void unless there are special circumstances where a marriage report was made between a person and a person who was in a de facto marital relationship, even though he was in a de facto marital relationship, due to brain strokes

[1] Article 815 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 815 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Meu22 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1591), Supreme Court Decision 84Meu45 delivered on August 21, 1984 (Gong1984, 1554), Supreme Court Decision 93Meu935 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong194, 1690)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Reu2414 delivered on July 5, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 812(1) of the Civil Act provides that a marriage shall take effect by reporting in accordance with the Family Register Act, and Article 815 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that one of the grounds for nullity of marriage shall be one of the cases where there is no agreement between the parties to the marriage. In light of the purport of these provisions, in order that the marriage is valid, there must be an agreement between the parties to the marriage, and such agreement of marriage shall exist at the time of reporting the marriage (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu22, Sept. 27, 1983).

However, according to relevant evidence and records, the plaintiff's father, the non-party deceased's father and the defendant came to know about the business relation around February 1984 and went through a wedding ceremony on May 19 of the same year, and living together with the above deceased's father at the home of the above deceased around that time. However, the above deceased was in a so-called plant life or no different state until he died on November 14, 1989. The defendant can be seen as null and void, unless there are any special circumstances, even if the above facts were de facto marital relations between the deceased and the defendant, as seen above, even if they were in a de facto marital relation between the deceased and the above defendant.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below is inappropriate, the conclusion of the court below that the marriage of this case is null and void is justified, and all arguments cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)