The case holding that even if the marriage was made unilaterally by unilaterally using the seal of the other party and by unilaterally preparing the marriage report, the marriage is valid by agreement of both parties.

Although one of the parties actually prepared and reported a marriage report, if it is recognized that the party had the intention to marry at the time of the marriage report, and if it is recognized that the party had lived as a married couple during one year, the above marriage report can not be considered as a report without the agreement of the parties, and the marriage is valid.

Articles 812 and 815 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

The claimant's claim is dismissed.

Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

The marriage reported to the Mayor of Jinju on August 14, 1986 between the claimant and the respondent shall be confirmed to be null and void.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

According to the statement of No. 1 (No. 1) without dispute in the formation, it is recognized that the marriage report was filed with the actual Mayor as of August 14, 1986 between the claimant and the respondent.

On April 1986, the claimant asserted that the claimant was acting with the respondent, but the claimant's parent and the claimant did not agree to refuse marriage with the respondent because they did not express his intention to contact the respondent because the respondent did not clearly express his intention because they had a concern about the respondent's serious shock, the respondent notified the respondent that he could not be the intention of marriage on the next system. In addition, the respondent made a false marriage declaration by affixing the seal of the claimant, made a false marriage declaration, and made a unilateral report of marriage unilaterally by using it. Thus, the above marriage is null and void as it is without agreement between the parties.

The defendant's testimony and evidence Nos. 2 (O. 8) and 3 (O. 1) were reversed, and the defendant's testimony and evidence Nos. 5 (O. 1 and No. 4) appeared to have been prepared by strong pressure, but the defendant's testimony and evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (O. 7) were no other evidence to recognize them, and the defendant's testimony and evidence Nos. 5 and 5 through 7 (O. 4) were no dispute over the establishment of the marriage report of this case. The defendant's testimony and evidence No. 2 (O. 8) were prepared in the name of the defendant and the defendant's testimony No. 1 and No. 97 (O. 1 and No. 4) were sent to the defendant's non-party No. 1 and the defendant's non-party No. 1 and the defendant's non-party No. 2 were sent to the defendant's non-party No. 98 and the defendant's non-party No. 1 and six (O. 7).

Therefore, even though the above marriage report was actually prepared and reported by the respondent alone, in light of the above facts, it is recognized that the above claimant had the intention to marry at the time of the above marriage report, and it is recognized that the above marriage report was living as a husband and wife for one time, so it cannot be viewed as a report without the agreement of the parties. Therefore, the above marriage is valid.

Therefore, on the premise that the above report of marriage was unilaterally made by the respondent without agreement with the claimant, the claim of this case by the claimant seeking confirmation of nullity of the marriage is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the trial are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The number of judges' demotions (Presiding Judge) and the number of judges' readings;