The case holding that it is difficult to deem that the null and void marriage was ratified even if the child was given birth to a child on several occasions without the substance of the marriage after the unilateral report of marriage.

The case holding that it is difficult to conclude that the null and void marriage has been ratified even if the child was given birth to a child on a several occasions without the substance of the marriage after the unilateral report of marriage.

Articles 139 and 815 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu22 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1591) 91Meu30 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong193, 782)

A

B

Seoul Family Court Decision 92Reu184 delivered on April 8, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held on August 27, 1984 that the plaintiff was sexual intercourse with the defendant on March 3, 1984, and the defendant made a written statement to the effect that the plaintiff would enter into a matrimonial relationship with the defendant within 8.10, and if the plaintiff would enter into a matrimonial relationship with the defendant, he would be punished, and it would be difficult to threaten the plaintiff to leave military uniforms by filing a complaint from the defendant's words and phrases and to report the marriage alone on August 27, 1984. The court below decided that the plaintiff would enter into a matrimonial relationship with the defendant on April 6, 1984, and that the plaintiff would enter into a matrimonial relationship with the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would enter into a matrimonial relationship with the defendant, and that the plaintiff would enter into a matrimonial relationship with the defendant without any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the plaintiff's agreement to enter into a marriage between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 3 was unilaterally reported the above marriage.

In light of the record comparison, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence such as misunderstanding the purport of the disposition document like the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff living together with the non-party C, who had been living together with the defendant from around April 1984 to the present day, and caused son to play all roles as the plaintiff's wife as stated in its judgment. On the other hand, the defendant did not take a photograph with the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff's family members, and the plaintiff did not have any objection. The plaintiff raised an objection to a public official in charge of family register through the plaintiff's Baa immediately after the defendant became aware of the fact that she had reported her marriage, but it was difficult to correct her marriage as she had already entered her family register and became difficult to correct it. The judgment of the court below was not erroneous in the judgment below 97 as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above 9th judgment, since the defendant expressed his intention to respond to the divorce and settled her bad faith during 197 days, and the defendant refused divorce and gave birth to the non-party D, 209, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above 97.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)