Where one of the parties in a de facto marital relationship has reported a marriage, but the intention of marriage of the other party is unclear, the effect of the marriage.

Articles 812 and 815 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Meu77 delivered on April 22, 1980 (Gong1980, 12828) Supreme Court Decision 83Meu22 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1591) Supreme Court Decision 93Meu935 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 1690) Decided April 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1190)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Gael et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Family Court Decision 2011Reu2853 decided June 1, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The agreement of marriage refers to an agreement that establishes a legally effective marriage under the Korean legal system that adopts the principle of legal divorce. Thus, even if one party in a de facto marital relationship reports a marriage to the other party, the marriage shall be null and void, as long as it is deemed that the other party lacks the intention of marriage (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu22, Sept. 27, 1983; 83Meu2, Sept. 27, 1983; 2009Meu13, Apr. 13, 2009, etc.). However, in a case where it is not recognized that there is an intention of marriage based on the other party who formed a de facto marital relationship in accordance with the custom of marriage and the principle of trust and good faith in a case where the other party clearly withdraws his intention of marriage or agreed to resolve a de facto marital relationship, the marriage shall not be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Meu77, Apr. 22, 1980; 209Meu939, May 139.

In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that, even if Defendant 1 was in a state of business capacity when filing a marriage report between the Defendants of de facto marital parties, the existence of Defendant 1’s intention to marry was presumed, and accordingly, the marriage between Defendants in accordance with Defendant 2’s report of marriage was valid.

In light of the above legal principles, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on presumption of intention to marry in de facto marriage or by violating the precedents, etc.

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)