The case holding that one of the married couple is liable for consolation money when one of the married couple voluntarily reported the marriage while requesting the agreement of the adjudication.

The case which recognized the liability for consolation money for one side of the married couple's report of marriage at his own discretion, even though one side of the married couple requests adjudication of the other party, transmits telephone and correspondence to the other party's home and place of work, and voluntarily reported the marriage and received the judgment of nullity of marriage by the other party's lawsuit.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. On February 7, 1994, it is confirmed that the marriage reported to the head of the Si/Gu/Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon/Eup/Myeon on Feb. 7, 1994 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) an amount of KRW 10,00,000 per annum from September 13, 1996 to April 17, 1997; and an amount of KRW 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

3. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are all dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be four minutes through the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, and one of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The main lawsuit: The purport of Paragraph 1 and the defendant (hereinafter only referred to as the defendant) shall pay 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and the amount equivalent to 25,000% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the application for modification of the lawsuit of this case to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced. The plaintiff shall pay as consolation money the amount equivalent to 50,000,000 won and 25,000 percent per annum from the date of service of a copy of the claim for the counterclaim of this case and the supplementary statement of the cause of the counterclaim of this case to the date of full payment. As division of property, 30,000,000 won and the amount equivalent to 25,000 percent per annum from the day following the judgment of this case to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 6-1 and No. 2, and there are no objections.

A. On July 3, 1990, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to divorce after filing a marriage report, and reported divorce on March 10, 1992.

B. The defendant unilaterally prepared a marriage report on April 20, 1992, after the agreement was married, and reported the marriage. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to confirm the nullity of marriage with this court and received a favorable judgment on August 28 of the same year, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 19 of the same year.

C. However, on February 7, 1994, the marriage report between the plaintiff and the defendant was submitted and accepted to the head of the Young-gun, Young-gun, Young-si, the main body of which was to be registered as married between the plaintiff and the defendant on the family register.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

The above evidence and evidence No. 7-1 through 11, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 9-1 through 19, Gap evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 5-2, and 3-3 (Provided, That the part which is not believed in the following among evidence No. 9, No. 9-11, 18, 19, Eul evidence No. 5-2, and 5-3 shall be excluded). The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the witness evidence No. 9-9, 11, 18, 19, and Eul evidence No. 5-2, 3-3, 4-4 and 5-1, and the mother of the plaintiff's family investigator's testimony cannot be viewed as being contrary to the above evidence No. 9-1, and the mother of the defendant's family investigator's testimony cannot be viewed as being contrary to the above evidence No. 9-1, 1994.

(1) On March 10, 1992, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to make an interview by telephone and the plaintiff to find the plaintiff's workplace as the plaintiff's workplace, but unilaterally reported the marriage on April 20, 1992. On September 19, 1992, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to make an adjudication by sending a letter to the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff will be decided even after September 19 of the same year upon which the judgment to confirm the nullity of the marriage became final, but on February 7, 1994, the defendant unilaterally reported the marriage of this case by forging the plaintiff's seal to the plaintiff who did not seem to have any response.

(2) The Defendant, after one month after filing the instant marriage report, knew the Plaintiff of the fact that he reported the marriage by telephone.

(3) Even after this, the Defendant continued to call the Plaintiff’s house and workplace to make a ruling but requested the Plaintiff to pay money if it is impossible to make the ruling, but the Plaintiff refused to do so on February 18, 1995, and the Plaintiff must arrange a family register not to make any more bullying to the Plaintiff on February 18, 1995, and the Plaintiff would not make a family register settlement by December 1995, and the Plaintiff would be punished by a fine of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant if the Defendant voluntarily reported the marriage after the settlement of the family register, and the Defendant would be punished by a fine of KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and submitted to the Plaintiff in advance, signed and sealed the Plaintiff.

B. As to the claim for nullity of marriage

According to the above facts, the marriage report between the plaintiff and the defendant on February 7, 1994 between the plaintiff and the defendant is unilaterally made by the defendant without the agreement of marriage, and the marriage due to the above marriage report is null and void.

C. As to the claim of consolation money

On the other hand, the defendant requires the unity of adjudication, send phone and correspondence to the plaintiff's house and workplace continuously, and the defendant's report of marriage of this case, which is the second unilateral marriage report of this case, can be sufficiently recognized in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain, and the defendant has a duty to pay consolation money in money. Considering the plaintiff's age, occupation and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, the amount of consolation money shall be set at KRW 10,000,000.

Therefore, as consolation money, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10,000,000 won as consolation money and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 13, 1996 to April 17, 1997, which is clear from the date of this decision, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

A. As to the claim for divorce and consolation money

(1) The defendant's assertion

On September 19, 192, the Plaintiff found the Defendant even after the judgment invalidating the nullity of marriage became final and conclusive, and the Defendant reported the marriage of this case with the Plaintiff’s consent, and even thereafter, the Plaintiff reported the marriage of this case with the Plaintiff’s consent, and the Plaintiff began to avoid the Defendant since the Defendant continued to live in the future, and the Plaintiff sought a payment of KRW 50,00,000 as a divorce and consolation money against the Plaintiff, by asserting that there was a woman living together with the Plaintiff, and that there was a self-esteem between the Plaintiff and his woman, and that there was a divorce and consolation money against the Plaintiff.

(2) Determination:

As seen earlier, the above report of marriage is null and void. As such, the defendant's claim for divorce and the claim for consolation money on the premise that the marriage by the above report of marriage is valid is without merit.

B. As to the claim for division of property

(1) The defendant's assertion

After the marriage on July 3, 1990, the defendant purchased 10,000,000 won in a housing subscription deposit and bank loan under the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant purchased 10,000,000 won in a set-off apartment 101,204 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the plaintiff and the defendant living in the above apartment. During the marriage period, the plaintiff did not spend his salary for the above house subscription deposit and bank loan as the living expenses. The plaintiff appropriated the defendant's living expenses because he did not spend his salary for the reason of the repayment of the above house subscription deposit and bank loan. The plaintiff received the above apartment on September 26, 1994 after the report of the marriage of this case on February 27, 1994. Thus, the plaintiff's property division must pay 30,000,000 won equivalent to 1/2 of the market price of the above apartment.

(2) Determination:

As seen earlier, each marriage by a report of marriage on February 7, 1994 and April 20, 192 becomes null and void. Therefore, the claim for division of property under the premise that the above marriage is valid is no longer reasonable. Even if the above claim is considered as a claim for division of property based on the divorce on March 10, 1992, the claim for division of property ceases to exist two years after the date of divorce. The above agreement was filed by the defendant more than two years after the date of divorce, and it is apparent that the claim for division of property was filed by the defendant as of May 17, 1994, and it is apparent in the record that the defendant additionally filed a claim for division of property as of May 17, 1994, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant filed a claim for division of property within two years from the time of filing the report of the above agreement. Thus, the above claim by the defendant's mother or unjust.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining principal claim and the defendant's counterclaim are dismissed as all are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-Jil Kim Jong-sung