In a case where Gap and Eul, a legal married couple Eul, formed a de facto marital relationship jointly with Eul, and thereafter Gap and Eul maintained their separate status for about 46 years, and Gap claims a divorce against Eul, the case holding that there exists a ground for divorce "when there exists a serious reason to make it difficult to continue the marriage" as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act in the marriage between Gap and Eul, in case where Gap and Eul have a separate marital relationship with Eul, and thereafter Gap and Eul have maintained their separate status for about 46 years.

In a case where Gap and Eul, a legal married couple Eul, formed a de facto marital relationship jointly with Gap, and thereafter Gap and Eul formed a separate de facto marital relationship for about 46 years, and Gap and Eul continue to have a separate marital relationship for about 46 years, and Gap claims a divorce against Eul, the case holding that the marriage between Gap and Eul exists that the marital relationship between Gap and Eul, which corresponds to the essence of the marriage, has been broken down to the point that it is impossible to recover the marital relationship, compelling one spouse to continue their marital life, will result in an unreparable loss, and it cannot be concluded that Gap's liability for the failure of marital relationship remains to the extent that Gap's claim for divorce should not be rejected, even in light of the purpose pursued by the marriage system and the principle of good faith, which is the guiding ideology of the Civil Act, and therefore, the marriage between Gap and Eul, has a serious cause for divorce, which is "when it is difficult to continue marriage" as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney above-at-law)

Daegu District Court Decision 2009Reu873 Decided February 10, 2010

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "if there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage", which is a cause of divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, means the case where the marital relationship corresponding to the essence of the marriage is unable to be recovered, and compelling the continuation of the marital life to the extent that it is impossible for one spouse to join the other spouse. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue the marriage, the existence of the party's liability for the cause of failure of marriage, the period of marital life, the existence of children, the party's age, the guarantee of livelihood after divorce, and all other circumstances of the marital relationship shall be taken into consideration (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Meu2130, Dec. 24, 2009

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff (the plaintiff et al. of February 10, 1936) and the defendant (the plaintiff et al. of September 25, 1934) were married to the above △△△△ on or around February 9, 1958 and were married to the two children on or around April 9, 1959. The plaintiff was born to the two children. The plaintiff was left to the plaintiff's house located in the △△△△△△△△△△△△, Gocheon-gun, 1964, and was living separately with the non-party while living together with the non-party, and all of them were married to the family, and the plaintiff was married to the non-party's family. The defendant was considered to have no other relation between the plaintiff and the non-party's father's child born to the non-party, and the defendant was born to the non-party's mother and his child born to the non-party.

이를 앞에서 본 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원고와 피고의 혼인관계는 약 46년간 장기간의 별거와 원고와 소외인 사이의 사실혼관계 형성 등으로 인하여 혼인의 실체가 완전히 해소되고 원고와 피고 각자 독립적인 생활관계가 고착화되기에 이른 점, 원고와 피고가 별거할 무렵 원고의 아버지가 사망하고 그 후 피고가 시댁에서 나와 따로 집을 얻어 생활하면서 피고와 시댁과의 유대관계도 단절된 것으로 보이는 점, 원고와 소외인 사이에 출생한 자녀도 원고와 피고의 독립적인 생활관계를 자연스럽게 받아들이고 오히려 원고와 소외인을 진정한 부부로 받아들일 것으로 보이는 점, 원고와 피고의 혼인관계가 위와 같이 파탄에 이르게 된 것은 원고에게 책임이 있다고 할 것이나 별거 상태가 46년간 계속된 데에는 피고의 책임도 전혀 없다고 볼 수 없는 점, 원고와 피고 사이의 부부공동생활 관계의 해소 상태가 장기화되면서 원고의 유책성도 세월의 경과에 따라 상당 정도 약화되고 원고가 처한 상황에 비추어 그에 대한 사회적 인식이나 법적 평가도 달라질 수밖에 없으므로, 현 상황에 이르러 원고와 피고의 이혼 여부를 판단하는 기준으로 파탄에 이르게 된 데 대한 책임의 경중을 엄밀히 따지는 것의 법적·사회적 의의(의의)는 현저히 감쇄(감살)되었다고 보이는 점, 원고와의 이혼을 거절하는 피고의 혼인계속의사는 일반적으로 이혼 여부를 판단함에 있어서 반드시 참작하여야 하는 요소이기는 하지만, 원고와 피고가 처한 현 상황에 비추어 이는 혼인의 실체를 상실한 외형상의 법률혼관계만을 계속 유지하려는 것에 다름 아니라고 보이고, 피고의 혼인계속의사에 따라 현재와 같은 파탄 상황을 유지하게 되면, 특히 원고에게 참을 수 없는 고통을 계속 주는 결과를 가져올 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합·참작하여 보면, 원고와 피고의 혼인은 혼인의 본질에 상응하는 부부공동생활 관계가 회복할 수 없을 정도로 파탄되고, 그 혼인생활의 계속을 강제하는 것이 일방 배우자에게 참을 수 없는 고통이 된다고 할 것이며, 혼인제도가 추구하는 목적과 민법의 지도이념인 신의성실의 원칙에 비추어 보더라도 혼인관계의 파탄에 대한 원고의 유책성이 반드시 원고의 이혼청구를 배척하지 않으면 아니 될 정도로 여전히 남아 있다고 단정할 수 없으므로, 원고와 피고의 혼인에는 민법 제840조 제6호 소정의 ‘혼인을 계속하기 어려운 중대한 사유가 있을 때'라는 이혼원인이 존재한다고 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not properly examine and determine the above circumstances, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim of this case only based on the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the cause of divorce under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)