The costs of an appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the claimant was in a work-related relationship on the date of 1964, which was closed to Seoul, and entered into an internal relationship with the non-party, so far, and the defendant was living together so far, and the defendant was produced by the 2 South and North Korean children. In light of this, the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent seems to have reached the situation where the failure was caused by the failure of the claimant. However, the claimant cannot seek a resolution of the marital relationship solely on the ground that his marital relationship was broken down. In light of the records, examining the examination process and the determination of the evidence by the court below, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's failure, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the ground for violation of the rules of evidence, is difficult

In this paper, by examining whether the marital relationship that led to the failure without due cause can be returned to a very normal marital life, it is necessary for a true couple to see who is a married couple. However, in the judicial divorce, the interpretation of the Civil Code for the purpose of the Civil Law, which adopts the flexible legal system, is that the responsible spouse responsible for the failure of the marital life has reached the failure of the marital relationship, and thus, it is not possible to claim a divorce. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)