The Constitutional Court ruled that the ban on marriage between blood relatives within eighth degree was constitutional.
However, it was decided that the law needs to be amended as the provision of the Civil Act that a marriage within eighth degree is invalid is not in accordance with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court today (27th) accepted a part of the constitutional complaint filed by Mr. A, who is a party to the divorce suit, to confirm the unconstitutionality of Article 815, No. 2 of the Civil Act, and decided that it was inconsistent with the constitution.
This provision stipulates that if people within eighth degree marry each other, the marriage is annulled.
Inconsistency of the Constitution is a decision that recognizes the unconstitutionality of a provision of the law, but remains temporarily in order to prevent confusion if it is immediately invalidated.
If the legislature does not amend the law, this provision will lose its effect after December 31, 2024.
The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 809, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act, which prohibits marriage of blood relatives within eighth degree, is constitutional.
Mr. A had been married for several years with his spouse whom he met in the United States, and after returning to Korea, his partner requested a divorce and refused.
In response, Mr. A's spouse filed a lawsuit to confirm the annulment of the marriage, arguing that the two were first cousins.
A filed a constitutional complaint before the final judgment of the Supreme Court after losing both the first and second trials of the divorce case.