Effect of a contract with the purport of liquidation of overlapping relations and payment of support fees for children;

Contracts with the aim of settling the existing overlapping relations and paying the support fees to the children born between them are not related to the payment of the support fees for maintaining the overlapping relations, so it cannot be deemed invalid contracts violating the public order and good morals.

Article 103 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 80Da458 decided Jun. 24, 1980 (Articles 2103(4) and 20 Ka1246, house12446, house28 ②53, Gong638, 12957)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 4294 civility98 decided Feb. 1, 198

The main indictment is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff (the defendant) sought a judgment that the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff (the defendant)'s legal representative is also seeking a ruling as to the same paragraph 1. The defendant's factual statement and evidence between both parties are claiming support fees in the plaintiff's legal representative. The plaintiff's statement that 12 children born between the plaintiff and the defendant are currently being raised at the time of living with the defendant, and Gap's evidence No. 1 was prepared by the defendant himself and the defendant's legal representative, and the defendant's statement that 1 was present at the time of living with the defendant, and the plaintiff No. 3 was not present at the time of the plaintiff's allegation, and the defendant's statement that the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant No. 3 were not present at the time of birth, and the plaintiff No. 1 was not present at the time of the plaintiff's original statement and the defendant's statement that the plaintiff No. 1 were present at the time of birth of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant's legal representative. 2.

The facts of the birth of 1 South and North Korea between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the facts that the plaintiff raises the above 1 South and North Korea as of April 3, 4292 are under dispute between the parties, and the defendant bears a seal of 1.5 million won under his name. Thus, considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments as to the testimony of the non-party 1 in each of the non-party 3, non-party 2, and non-party 1, the plaintiff was given birth of 12 women who were living together with the defendant who was living together with the defendant about 15 years before the plaintiff. Since the defendant again puts the non-party 1 and the non-party 12 women who were living together with the defendant, the plaintiff would be deferred to the defendant, and the fact that the defendant and the defendant agreed to pay the above 1.5 million won as support fees for the defendant and the above children at the request of the defendant and the above children, the non-party 1 witness cannot be admitted to the defendant's testimony that the non-party 4's testimony and the defendant's testimony did not meet the original evidence.

The defendant's agreement on the payment of support fees between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a true expression of intention in light of the defendant's situation, and the plaintiff knew or could have known that his expression of intention was not a true intention. Thus, the defendant's expression of intention is null and void pursuant to Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act. The defendant's expression of intention is caused by coercion of the plaintiff and the non-party 1, but it seems that the non-party 5's testimony is revoked pursuant to Article 109 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but it is consistent with the above, the non-party 5's testimony cannot be able to be adopted by the party members, and the non-party 7's testimony is not sufficient to recognize the fact of dispute except for the testimony of the non-party 4 and the non-party 7's testimony of the court below and the non-party 4's non-party 7's non-party 4, and the defendant is also a non-party 6's assertion that the defendant's testimony and the defendant's testimony were not a new relationship with the defendant's testimony.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 1.5 million won to the plaintiff according to the contract for the payment of support fees of this case. The plaintiff is obligated to pay 1.2 million won after the date of conclusion of the contract of this case to the plaintiff, since 10.0 million won after the date of conclusion of the contract of this case and 3.0 million won after deducting 300,0000 won from the above 3.00,000 won, if the plaintiff is a part of the support fees of the defendant and is transferred from the defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is ultimately obligated to pay 1.2 million won after deducting 3 million won.

For the above reasons, the plaintiff's claim for principal action is reasonable, and thus, the original judgment, which is the purport, is reasonable. Therefore, the defendant's principal action is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of lawsuit are borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jae-ok (Presiding Judge)