"The Husband's Number of Divorces Differs" Bride in Legal Dispute with Marriage Agency [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

This is the story of a bride who filed a lawsuit against a marriage agency, claiming that "the number of divorces of my husband was reported differently."

The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

In January 2020, Ms. A visited a marriage agency that boasted of being a "top-tier matchmaking service" to find a husband. She paid 4.95 million KRW and signed a contract based on the number of matches, allowing her to be matched with male members three times. After using up her opportunities within a month, Ms. A paid an additional 2.2 million KRW and signed a one-year fixed-term contract with unlimited matching opportunities. The contract included a clause stating, "Upon successful marriage, a reward of 20 million KRW must be paid to the agency, and if not paid within 30 days, the amount must be doubled as compensation," and Ms. A also paid nearly 15 million KRW more to upgrade her membership level.

Later, Ms. A was introduced by the agency to a male member, Mr. B, described as a "100 billion KRW asset owner with a history of divorce," and they got married at the end of 2021. However, Ms. A did not pay the promised marriage reward to the agency. Ms. A claimed, "Mr. B's number of divorces is not once but twice, but the agency did not provide accurate information about my husband." The agency filed a lawsuit claiming, "Ms. A and Mr. B are jointly liable to pay a total of 40 million KRW to the agency." On the other hand, Ms. A countered with a damages claim lawsuit, stating, "The agency's failure to provide proper information caused the marriage to break down. Rather, the agency should pay 50 million KRW."

According to the legal community on the 6th, recently, Judge Choi Jung-yoon of the Civil Division 94 at the Seoul Central District Court ruled that Ms. A must pay the agency 40 million KRW and related delayed interest alone. Judge Choi stated, "Ms. A personally signed next to each clause in the contract, such as 'Marriage reward 20 million KRW' and 'I have received sufficient explanation and confirmation,'" and "the agency fulfilled its duty to explain the reward and penalty clauses."

Judge Choi said, "It is true that the exact number of Mr. B's divorces was not accurately conveyed, but this does not mean the agency cannot receive the agreed reward," adding, "The agency could have reasonably believed that by providing detailed information about the financial status of the partner, which Ms. A valued highly, simply indicating the presence or absence of divorce history fulfilled their duty to provide information." Furthermore, "Ms. A initially only wrote 'I value the partner's financial status highly' in the desired partner conditions and family matters. There was no mark in the partner's marital history section, which distinguishes between first marriage, common-law marriage, and remarriage," and "Ms. A paid an additional 14.95 million KRW to meet a male member with better financial status and upgraded her membership level," the judge explained.

All of Ms. A's counterclaims were dismissed. Judge Choi stated, "Based on the evidence submitted by Ms. A alone, it cannot be recognized that the agency caused the breakdown of the couple's marriage or that Ms. A suffered mental damages." Also, "Although Mr. B reportedly asked the agency staff whether it was possible to pay Ms. A's reward in installments, this alone cannot be seen as a joint guarantee," and the judge did not recognize Mr. B's joint responsibility for Ms. A's compensation liability. Both the agency and Ms. A appealed the first-instance ruling.