2012Dhap8680 Invalidity, etc. of Marriage

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

June 12, 2013

June 19, 2013

1. The marriage reported to the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 29, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is confirmed to be null and void.

2. The Defendant: (a) paid consolation money of KRW 10,00,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) from January 25, 2013 to June 2013, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

19. Payment of 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed.

4. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 230,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

5. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

6. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

(1) The defendant delivered 30,00,000 won as consolation money to the plaintiff and the copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff

D. The 20% interest per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment shall be paid to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant shall

Division 230,000,000 won and the day of full payment from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case

up to twenty percent (20%) per annum shall be paid.

1. Indication of claim;

A. Determination as to the claim for nullity of marriage

1) Whether recognition was recognized or not) The Plaintiff and the Defendant began to live together through marriage information companies on July 17, 201.

B) At the time of the teaching system, the Plaintiff was an accountant, and the Defendant was only an employee as a fixed-term teacher and did not have any other occupation. At the latest age, he was married due to the late age.

C) On May 30, 201, the Plaintiff leased the leased amount of KRW 230,00,000 for the purpose of married life with the Defendant, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 101 Dong 503 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The mixed water would bring about the goods being used by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and only the Defendant purchased air conditioners and air conditioners.

D) The Defendant argued to the Plaintiff by pointing out that the Plaintiff would return the amount of KRW 5,00,000 on the face of the week. In addition, the Defendant changed or changed the date of marriage twice, and revoked the reservation of the wedding hall once. The Plaintiff attempted not to marry on the ground that it is difficult for the Defendant to live a normal marital life with the Defendant, but the marriage ceremony was raised at the top of the Defendant and the neighbors.

E) However, the Defendant, from the day after a new divorce travel, continued to go home to the Plaintiff, and returned home to her home to the Plaintiff, and got home to the Plaintiff, and confirmed the Plaintiff by making a phone call at a late time at night with the other party who she saw a boom with the point of occupation, and asked the Plaintiff whether she was drinking. Furthermore, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff applied for the above booming service of the Plaintiff’s mobile phone and supervised the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff she spawdded with her private village.

Then, it was hard to find out the fact of telephone call with the plaintiff because the plaintiff did not believe that the plaintiff's speech was made with another woman.

F) On November 201, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3,000,00 to relatives, but the Defendant did not believe it and did not confirm the fact to their relatives. During that process, the Plaintiff and his body fighting were conducted with the Plaintiff.

G) The Defendant: (a) during a period of approximately two months around the end of March 2012, when the Plaintiff was in the night and died, the Defendant, despite his body, expressed a continuous complaint to the Plaintiff; and (b) prevented the Plaintiff from getting out of the new wall by making an objection.

h) Ultimately, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to hedge, and she went to his/her house on May 24, 2012 and his/her house located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

I) Around June 4, 2012, the Plaintiff was driving the Defendant, who was taken on the phone of the Defendant after receiving the phone from the Defendant, and continued to find the Plaintiff as a prison with the Plaintiff’s company and the Plaintiff’s punishment, by failing to get off from the vehicle, bringing the Plaintiff a bath, and by driving the police, the Defendant was removed from the Defendant’s will, and returned to the Defendant’s prison. However, around the second day of the new wall, the Defendant continued to find the Plaintiff as a prison of the Plaintiff’s company and the Plaintiff’s punishment, such as finding the Defendant as a prison of the Plaintiff’s punishment.

(j) On June 5, 2012, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff the text of the letter of apology, which the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff, with the knowledge that the Plaintiff would be aware of by the end of June 2012, and sent the answer message to the Defendant.

(k) Nevertheless, on May 19, 2012, the Defendant purchased the instant apartment in KRW 409,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant around June 5, 2012 by using KRW 230,00,000 as an intermediate payment created by the Plaintiff, regardless of the knowledge of the Plaintiff.

(l) In addition, the Defendant voluntarily reported marriage to the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on June 29, 2012.

(m) On July 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant with the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office for the forgery of private documents, the crime of false entry of the original of a notarial deed, etc., and filed the instant lawsuit around July 24, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Plaintiff’s assertion of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including each number), as a whole, and the purport of the whole pleading

The plaintiff asserts that the marriage report made on June 29, 2012 by the defendant is null and void since the defendant was unilaterally submitted to the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office a marriage report prepared by the defendant, while the defendant had already settled a de facto marital relationship.

B) Determination

On the other hand, 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 of the parties in a de facto marital relationship has reported a marriage to the other party, the marriage is null and void as long as it is deemed that the other party lacks his intention of marriage. According to the above facts of recognition, the report of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant on June 29, 2012 to the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is null and void without the agreement of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant as prescribed by Article 815 (1) of the Civil Act. Since the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation, the plaintiff's claim of nullity of marriage in this case has merit.

B. Determination as to the claim of consolation money

According to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the failure of de facto marriage and the report of the plaintiff's marriage.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 10,00,00 and the damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from January 25, 2013 to June 19, 2013, which is the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the plaintiff, for the existence and scope of the defendant's performance obligation.

[Ground of determination] As revealed in the above facts of recognition, the causes of and responsibility for de facto marriage failure are frequently doubtful against the plaintiff, and thereby bullying the plaintiff, thereby impairing the trust between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant's report of marriage against the plaintiff's will is likely to cause considerable mental suffering, and various circumstances such as the plaintiff's age and economic power are considered.

C. Determination on the claim for division of property

1) At the time when the Plaintiff and the Defendant began living together, the Plaintiff was an accountant at the time of the Plaintiff’s living. The Defendant, on July 17, 2011, posted a marriage ceremony on the ground of lack of occupation, was fully borne by the Plaintiff for the living cost during the period from July 17, 2011 to May 24, 2012 when the Plaintiff’s house was located.

B) On May 30, 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment at KRW 230,00,000 with the Defendant’s house, and the lease deposit was the entire amount created by the Plaintiff by combining the lease deposit of the house where the Plaintiff disposed of the shares held by the Plaintiff and was living. The mixed water was the continuous use of the goods used by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and only the Defendant newly purchased air conditioners and air conditioners.

C) On May 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased the instant apartment at KRW 409,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant around June 5, 2012, by taking out the loan as an intermediate payment of KRW 230,00,000, and purchasing KRW 409,00; and (b) purchased the instant apartment in the name of the Defendant.

D) The market price of the instant apartment is KRW 420,00,000: 2) The property subject to division: the value of the instant apartment in the name of the Defendant or the property subject to division (1) the Plaintiff’s net property: 0 won (2) the Defendant’s net property: 420,000,000 won (3) and the Defendant’s net property: 420,000,000 won: 420,000,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, 12, and 15 (including each number), and the division ratio and method of division of property as a whole) : 55%, defendant 45%

[Ground of determination] All the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division, the process, period, and reason why a de facto marital relationship has failed, and the age and occupation of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B) The method of division of property: Property in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s respective names is determined to have ownership, and the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff the shortage of the amount to be reverted to the Plaintiff according to the division of property.

C) Property division amount that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff: 230,000,000 won

[Calculation Form] (1) Of the net property of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Plaintiff’s share 420,00,000,000 won x 55% x 231,000,000 won (2) x 231,00,000 won after deducting the Plaintiff’s net property from the amount under the above paragraph (1) 1 - KRW 0 won - KRW 231,00,000 - KRW 231,000,000 (3))

(2) Sub-determinations 230,000,000 Won 4) which set aside a little amount of subsection (2) above

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 230,000,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

D. If so, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of nullity of marriage is justified, and the claim for consolation money is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed, and the claim for division of property shall be determined as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2. Judgment by public notice: Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act, Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Jong-ok

Judge Coordination

Support for judges' organization