[2] The case holding that where the mother of an incompetent who is an incompetent in a plant condition is appointed as a special representative under the Civil Procedure Act, and has filed a divorce lawsuit against the spouse of an incompetent in the capacity of an incompetent in the capacity of an incompetent in the capacity of his/her guardian, and the subsequent replacement was made by a guardian, the act of the

[3] The case holding that there exists a ground for divorce, which caused the failure of the marriage between the spouse and the other male, such as leaving the husband of a vegetable state, leaving the husband of the vegetable state, leaving the vegetable state, leaving the her husband back to her natives, leaving the her husband back to her natives, and

1. As to the legality of the divorce claim by the special representative of this case

In the case of an incompetent under disability, such as the unknown plant condition, a guardian, whose basic duties are the recuperation and identification of an incompetent under Articles 947 and 949 of the Civil Act, and the management of his/her property, may file a claim for judicial divorce against the spouse on behalf of the incompetent. If the guardian is the spouse, the guardian may request the court of the lawsuit to appoint a special representative and file a claim for judicial divorce against the spouse pursuant to the main sentence of Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act and Article 62(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

As to the Defendant’s assertion that the lawsuit of this case brought by the Plaintiff’s special representative is unlawful, the lower court determined that the lawsuit of this case is lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, on the ground that, at the time of the institution of the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff is an incompetent under a vegetable condition, and at the time of the institution of the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff’s mother was appointed as a special representative under the Civil Procedure Act, and the Plaintiff’s guardian was replaced with the Plaintiff’s guardian after the closure of argument in the first instance trial, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was conducted on behalf of the Plaintiff at the lower court with the consent of the family council after the replacement of the Plaintiff

2. On the grounds for divorce and presumption of intention of divorce

The court below is justified in holding that there exists a ground for divorce, which caused the failure of the marriage of this case to the defendant, and furthermore, the intention of divorce of the plaintiff himself can be objectively presumed, by taking into account the facts as stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the defendant left a close-down with the plaintiff who was living in the beds and returned back to her friendship with another male and female.

Therefore, we cannot accept the ground of appeal that the judgment below erred in violation of the empirical rule as to the existence of grounds for divorce.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)