The fact that the Fund and the living expenses for three months have been received, and that the wife has a family name, the husband

her husband by sending a letter to the purport that a warning is given and making a note, etc. on the relevant summary;

The fact that he was recommended as a public official for the intelligence, the wife's her husband's brinco, etc.

The fact that tear has to tear alone does not have a cause of judicial divorce to the wife.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. If the husband neglected the peace of the family and the essential equality of the male and female, and did so, the husband did not look at the wife's attached responsibilities, but did not look at the wife's attached responsibilities, and caused the cooling of the family, the husband cannot claim a judicial divorce on the ground that there is a cooling sense due to the overlapped life.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The court below is just in finding that the defendant sent a letter to the effect that the defendant was given a warning to the defendant under the name of July 5, 1963, and that the defendant was pregnant and the defendant agreed to live separately, and that the defendant received the defendant's living expenses for three months. The defendant sent a letter to the effect that the defendant was sent a warning to the defendant under the name of July 5, 1963, as well as the fact that the defendant was subject to a recommendation agency as a public official for the counter-argument, and the fact that the claimant and the defendant got a little fighting due to separate living and home disarguation, and the claimant's baco-t, etc. are faced, and the defendant's baco-t, etc. are not enough to recognize that there was a cause for judicial divorce to the defendant. Accordingly, the court below's appeal is justified in rejecting the defendant's legitimate grounds of appeal for non-party 1's non-party 1's lack of legal judgment as a result of reargument between the claimant and the claimant's legitimate grounds of appeal.

The judgment on the second ground for appeal

The court below rejected the defendant's testimony by the non-party 2 witness of the first instance court, which corresponds to the fact that the respondent alleged by the claimant has committed a serious insult and abuse against the mother and that the defendant did not have any effect on the part of the Si/Gun/Gu, and that the defendant believed the defendant to believe that the defendant was able to salute and salute with the neighbor, and committed a salute with the neighbor, and stolen or benefiting the money of the claimant due to his bad character, and that the respondent took advantage of the defendant's salute and salute against the claimant, and threatened the defendant to kill and die the claimant, and put in food and drink. The respondent has damaged the defendant's reputation by saluting and insulting the plaintiff's house, and the respondent has destroyed the bill and saluted the door and prevented the defendant from entering the house, and therefore, there is no illegality in law in rejecting the claimant's assertion. Therefore, all arguments to criticize the judgment of the court below are without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court