2018drid20308 Invalidity of Marriage

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

June 20, 2018

July 4, 2018

1. On April 17, 2017, the marriage reported to the head of Busan Island on April 17, 2017 between the defendant and the deceased 00 is confirmed to be null and void.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a deceased 00 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and a new 00 child.

B. The Defendant and the Deceased reported their marriage on July 23, 1987, and the consultation on November 18, 2002 was shared.

C. On March 21, 2017, the Deceased was hospitalized in the East Asian University Hospital in brain fluorial color. The Deceased on April 2017.

13. From April 15, 2017, from around 49 to around 15, 2017, the treatment was received in a middle-patient’s room. From around April 16, 2017, the person died on April 19, 2017.

D. On April 17, 2017, the Defendant submitted a marriage report to the head of Busan District Office and reported the marriage with the Deceased (hereinafter “instant marriage report”). The above marriage report was prepared by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the preparation of the marriage report as a witness stated in the marriage report with the Deceased who is a married party.

E. On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, who was owned by the deceased, succeeded to the apartment complex located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan, under the agreement on division of inherited property. The Defendant’s creditor, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. asserted such division agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and filed a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff on December 22, 2017 ( Busan District Court Branch Branch Support).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination;

According to the above facts of recognition, around April 17, 2017, when the defendant reported a marriage, the deceased was unable to express his/her intention of marriage because he/she was not in a state of mixed water or anti-competing, and the report of marriage was made at will by the defendant without consultation with the deceased. Therefore, the report of marriage in this case is null and void since it was made without an agreement between the parties to the marriage (Article 815 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act), and the plaintiff, who is the deceased's child, has legal interest in seeking confirmation thereof.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Judges Yoon Jae-nam