It stipulates in Article 1002 of the Civil Code that the residence of the wife shall be that of the husband and the residence of the taken-in husband shall be that of the wife; nevertheless, in case there is an agreement that the residence of the husband shall be that of the wife or the residence of the wife shall be that of the taken-in husband, the agreement shall be upheld. In that, the husband or the wife (for the taken-in husband) is vested with the right to designate the residence for the couple. Though for the purpose of respecting the couple, the proviso renders the husband or the wife the opportunity to make an agreement on the residence, one shall accept the residence of the other as his/her residence in the case where the husband or the wife of the taken-in husband refuses to make such an agreement or in the case where no agreement can be made. According to the proviso, the right to determine the residence is vested in the husband or the wife (for the taken-in husband) based on gender and the type of marriage. The stipulation in the Constitution that people have the freedom to live means that the people have the right to choose their residences. The residence stipulation is made to determine the effect of legal matters related to the couple. There is no clause in the Civil Code obligating the people to designate a residence nor is there any clause in the Civil Code designating the residence as the only place where the couple may perform the marital obligation to cohabitation, regardless of whether it stipulates in Article 1001 of the Civil Code that either party of the marriage owes the other the marital obligation to cohabitation. As such, the residence shall not be viewed as the only place designated by the Civil Code where the couple may perform their marital obligation to cohabitation. Given that education is very common nowadays and men and women have almost the same opportunity to make career choices, the work place of the husband and the wife may not be the same. The couple may come to an agreement to designate a residence in the case where the couple is willing to accommodate one another. Nevertheless, one shall accept the residence of the other as his/her residence in the case where the husband or the wife of the taken-in husband refuses to make such an agreement or in the case where no agreement can be made. The above law does not take into consideration that the other party of the marriage also has the right to choose the residence and does not cover specific circumstances, which is in violation of the principle of proportionality and equity of the Constitution. The above law shall become null and void within one year from the date of this Interpretation.