Agreements between husband and wife are agreed to take procedures for divorce only in the form of a special purpose and the intention of divorce.

If the legal couple agreed to take the divorce procedure once more, it cannot be deemed that there was no agreement between the above couple on the intention of divorce, even though the wife had been in order to obtain economic assistance from the other man who had established a marital relationship before marriage, or had agreed not to file a divorce report by taking the divorce procedure only in the form of the agreement at the time of the above agreement.

Articles 834 and 836 of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

1. On September 12, 1989, the marriage reported to the head of Si/Eup/Myeon/Dong on September 12, 1989 between the claimant and the respondent shall be confirmed to be null and void;

2. The claimant's main appeal shall be dismissed;

3. The costs of a trial shall be borne by the claimant through this and anti-trials.

In this trial: a judgment that confirms the invalidity of divorce reported to the head of the Dong-Eup, Gyeong-dong, 1989 on September 4, 1989 between the claimant (an appellant, hereinafter referred to as the claimant) and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

An anti-adjudication: It is as set forth in paragraph (1).

1. Determination on this appeal

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the trial in the statement No. 1 (No. 1) without dispute in the establishment, the claimant and the respondent may recognize the fact that they reported marriage on December 27, 1982 and have 2 women under the chain as stated in the purport of the claim on September 4, 1989.

After the marriage, the claimant has been operating precious metal and has been living with the revenue of the claimant. Since the respondent was responsible for the debt of 10,000,000 won, the respondent was unable to live due to his/her own life, the respondent was given birth to the non-party 1 before he/she married with his/her own claimant, and the above male would not help the above male, but should not report the divorce after the consultation with the claimant, because he/she did not reach the agreement with the above male's help, the claimant was confirmed by the above male's intention of divorce on August 14, 1989. Since the respondent was examined the family register around September 5, 198, and the respondent did not have the intention of deception between the respondent and the respondent, the respondent did not have the intention of deception between the respondent and the defendant's intention of divorce. Therefore, the claimant's intention of deceit and the above intention of divorce should not be confirmed by the defendant's intention of deception. Therefore, the claimant's intention of deceit and the above purport should not be confirmed by the above purport of divorce.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that there was a mutual agreement between the claimant and the respondent on the divorce even if the claimant and the respondent have agreed to not file a divorce after taking the procedure of divorce as alleged by the claimant for the above purpose. Therefore, the argument that the above divorce between the claimant and the respondent is null and void is not reasonable in itself because it is not consistent with the true intention of divorce based on the fact that the claimant and the respondent have agreed to not file a divorce, and it is only confirmed the intention of divorce with the confirmation of the intention of divorce for the economic assistance of the male who had entered into an internal relationship before marriage, and the respondent did not file a divorce report with the confirmation of the intention of divorce for the purpose of receiving the economic assistance of the claimant and the respondent, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the respondent unilaterally filed a divorce report. Therefore, the claimant's appeal of this case is groundless.

2. Judgment on a request for an anti-adjudication

In full view of the statements in No. 1 (No. 1), No. 2 (resident registration card), and No. 1 (resident registration card), No. 2 (resident registration card), each of which is presumed to have been established, and the testimony in No. 2 (written confirmation) and the testimony in No. 2 (written confirmation) of which are presumed to have been established, the claimant and the respondent reported marriage on Dec. 27, 1982 and reported to the defendant on Dec. 27, 1982, but the claimant who operated precious metals at the time of marriage did not have a certain occupation, was liable for the debt of KRW 10,00,000 to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance for raising living expenses due to the lack of living, but the above debt could not be repaid, and the respondent and the respondent, at the Seoul Northern District Court's branch of the Seoul District Court, made an agreement between the claimant and the defendant and the defendant, and made a report of marriage by the claimant and the defendant on his/her own discretion, and made the report of marriage to the claimant on Apr. 14.

Thus, the above report of marriage between the claimant and the respondent was made without an agreement between the parties to the marriage, which constitutes grounds for nullity of marriage under Article 815 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, and thus, the respondent's appeal of this case seeking confirmation is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claimant's main appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the respondent's appeal of this case shall be accepted as reasonable, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party through this adjudication and the counter-adjudication. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Egro-con (Presiding Judge) Korea