2017drid201268 Action for a claim for nullity of marriage, etc.

A (1989,000)

2. Address;

Place of service

Reference domicile

Attorney Lee Jae-soo and Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

(B) B. (1988 no. 198)

2. Address;

Reference domicile

May 12, 2017

May 26, 2017

1. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

In the first place, on July 16, 2010 between the plaintiff and the defendant, Gangwon-do* * Gun** Eup/Myeon to confirm that the divorce reported between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void. In the second place, the same shall apply to paragraph 2 of the order.

1. Judgment as to the primary claim (request for confirmation of nullity of marriage);

The plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the effect of marriage on the ground that the plaintiff reported the marriage with the defendant, but did not have the intention to marry.

Under our legal system that takes the principle of legal divorce established by a marriage report, once a report of marriage is made through legitimate procedures, the marriage is presumed to be valid as it is in accordance with the agreement of marriage between the parties, and thus, the presumption should be followed by the evidence sufficient to be acceptable by anyone who asserts the nullity of the marriage.

According to the health union, records, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff’s written confirmation of marriage relation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is recognized as having been registered as having been reported of the marriage of this case.

Furthermore, as to whether the report of marriage was made without the intention of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is insufficient to conclude that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of the report of marriage as to whether the report of marriage was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

If the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (No. 1-6 No. 1-6-2 of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff) comprehensives the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the original and the Defendant did not appear on the date of pleading without submitting any written reply even after being served with the complaint of this case on the date of pleading on July 16, 2010, as it was a link between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which had been traveling with Gangwon-do and reported the marriage of this case to Gangwon-do along with a trip on July 16, 2010.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has failed to perform their duty of living together, support and cooperation to the extent that it is impossible to recover any longer. This constitutes grounds for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed, and the conjunctive claim is accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo