The case holding that the marriage report is valid on the ground that the father had the intention to marry even at the time of reporting the marriage by the wife in separate place.

The case holding that even if the plaintiff had become aware of the fact of marriage after the report of marriage by the defendant, who is a wife living separately with the defendant and gave birth to his child during the period of 1 year after the report of marriage, the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the report of marriage until 24 years have passed since the report of marriage. Rather, the plaintiff did not have withdrawn the intention of marriage with the defendant, and the above report of marriage cannot be concluded to be valid as it is based on an agreement between the parties to the marriage, on the basis that the plaintiff and the defendant have registered the defendant as the plaintiff's wife in compilation of the report of marriage.

Article 815 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 93Reu10 delivered on July 8, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below unilaterally withdrawn the Plaintiff’s marriage report from the Defendant on February 17, 1963 by means of its adopted evidence, and decided that the Plaintiff was unable to report the marriage to the public official of Nonparty 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the ground that the Plaintiff was aware of Nonparty 1’s de facto marital life on August 30 of the same year at the end of the frequent marital fighting of the couple due to its nature, and that the Plaintiff was unable to report the marriage to the public official of Nonparty 6, who was in charge of the above de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, and then continued to have been in a separate state of marriage with the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s report of de facto marital relationship was made with the Defendant on February 17, 1963, and that the Defendant was pregnant at the time of de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff on October 12, 1963, and received the Plaintiff’s report of de facto marital status without any personal information between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

2. However, according to the records, the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the above marriage report by the time when the court below became aware of the fact that the above marriage report was made since it was null and void after the above marriage report, but 24 years elapsed since then, the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the above marriage report by the time when the lawsuit was filed. Rather, the report of birth was made by the plaintiff and the defendant to the non-party 1 on the family register formed by the above marriage report by the plaintiff and the non-party 1. On the other hand, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was registered as the plaintiff's wife in compiling Wol-dong, Jeju, Jeju, the plaintiff's Jeju, the plaintiff's head, and the defendant submitted a marriage report to the family registry official with the plaintiff's seal kept by the defendant, unless there is any other clear evidence in light of these facts, it cannot be concluded that such a marriage report was made unilaterally by the defendant under the status of withdrawal of the plaintiff's marriage.

However, it is clear in the judgment of the court below that all of the above witnesses are the witness 1, 2, and 34 of the first instance court, which is the witness of the first instance court. However, according to the records, all of the above witnesses are the plaintiff's punishment, punishment, water leakage, scoo and relatives close to the plaintiff and the contents of their testimony are nothing more than that of the plaintiff's assertion from the plaintiff. Thus, they cannot be said to be difficult to believe their testimony as they are.

Rather, examining the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, which was rejected by the court below, based on the records, the above witness testified that, at the time when the above marriage report was filed, the plaintiff made a favorable testimony to the plaintiff and requested the non-party 6 to report the marriage as well as the report of the birth of the non-party 6, and accordingly, the defendant made a report of the marriage with the cooperation of the witness of the current village. They are those who can give more objective testimony in relation to the plaintiff rather than the plaintiff's punishment or leakage, who is the witness of the non-party 4th degree of the plaintiff. On the other hand, in relation to the defendant, the witness of the court of first instance is more favorable to the plaintiff (if the marriage report of this case is invalidated as seen in this case, there is no relative relationship with the defendant, the defendant is more favorable to the defendant, and even at the time of examining the contents of the testimony, the testimony does not seem to be consistent with those of the non-party 6.

Therefore, as the above witness 5, 6, and 7 testified with the defendant, if the plaintiff was married with the defendant and gave birth to his child while living together with the defendant, but without reporting the marriage, and the defendant filed a report of the marriage at the same time, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff had continued to have the intention of marriage at the time of marriage as well as at the time of the above report of marriage. Unless there are special circumstances that the plaintiff had withdrawn his intention of marriage with the defendant already expressed, unless the plaintiff had already expressed his intention of marriage with the defendant, the plaintiff was living together with another woman and gave birth to his child, and even if the plaintiff had been living separately with the defendant, such circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff withdrawn his intention of marriage with the defendant, and the above report of marriage between the parties is valid.

Although the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts are the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below which is a fact-finding court, they should not be consistent with logical rules and empirical rules. The court below believed the testimony of the witness 1, 2, and 34 who is less reliable, and rather believed to have credibility, and without reliance on the testimony of the witness 5, 6, and 7 who appears to have credibility, a thorough examination as to whether the defendant reported the marriage to the defendant, and there are special circumstances where the plaintiff withdrawn the intention of marriage with the defendant without any specific evidence, or a separate fact of the plaintiff and the defendant's withdrawal without any specific evidence that the above report of marriage was unilaterally made by the defendant while the marital relation between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated, it constitutes an unlawful violation of the rules of evidence, and this affected the conclusion of the judgment, which points this out.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)