[이혼][공1987.9.15.(808),1392]
(a) Whether the establishment of documentary evidence has been approved in accordance with the whole purport of pleadings;
(b) Whether a cause for judicial divorce has occurred when an appellee occurred in the Korean War.
A. Even in a case where the party did not prove in particular the establishment of documentary evidence as the site, the court may recognize its establishment by free evaluation, taking into account the whole purport of the pleading, instead of other evidence.
B. Even if the respondent was absent from the time of the Korean War, as long as he/she completed his/her punishment and lives as a good citizen, the reason alone does not constitute a ground for judicial divorce.
A. Articles 328 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 840 Subparag. 6 of the Civil Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da1857 Delivered on March 23, 1982
[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1
appellees
Seoul High Court Decision 86Reu172 delivered on February 23, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1.(a) As to paragraph (1),
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the respondent is aware of the failure to perform his/her duties, such as drinking only every day with a strong nature and with severe main wall, and assaulting the claimant without any justifiable reason and destroying his/her homicides without any justifiable reason, and the respondent requires excessive sexual acts or insults the claimant as a severe bath theory, and the claimant cannot check it for more than three years since he/she failed to do so, and therefore, he/she is found to have no evidence of evidence No. 4 (Investigation Report), No. 5 (Written Statement), No. 6 (Written Confirmation), and No. 7 (Written Confirmation), and evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 3 (No. 1) of the court below's judgment that corresponds to the claimant's assertion that he/she raised school expenses for his/her children, and that he/she raised school expenses for his/her children, and evidence No. 4 (Investigation Report), No. 5 (Written Evidence), and evidence No. 7 (Written Evidence) of the court below's judgment and evidence No. 2).
In light of the record, the fact-finding by the court below is correct and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or lack of sufficient deliberation.
Even in cases where the party concerned did not prove the establishment of documentary evidence as its site, the court may recognize its establishment by free evaluation, taking into account the whole purport of the pleading, instead of other evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1857, Mar. 23, 1982). Thus, the court below did not err by recognizing the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as having acknowledged the authenticity in accordance with the whole purport of pleading. The arguments are groundless.
2.With respect to paragraph (b),
Even if the respondent was absent from the time of the Korean War at the time of the Korean War, so long as he completed his punishment and lives as a good citizen, such reason alone does not constitute a ground for judicial divorce, and the theory of lawsuit outside the country is not required to be determined merely on the premise that it was established by establishing facts which are not recognized in the original judgment and the record, and it is just that the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of
The issue is groundless.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)