The case holding that where married couple are living separately for not less than 20 years and living together with each other, it constitutes a serious reason making it impossible to continue the marriage.

The respondent did not respond to the marriage of the claimant who was her husband at around 1966 at the time of the 1966 when the fraternity organized by the respondent was destroyed and the plaintiff did not respond to the marriage of the claimant who was her husband at around 1966.10, and the claimant did not enter into an internal relationship with another woman from the time when she became her husband and wife, and the respondent was living together with another male from around 1972 to the time when she became her husband and wife for about 20 years. In addition, if the claimant and the respondent were living together with the other male in 1972, and the defendant did not have any substance as a husband and wife for about 20 years, the marriage was broken down to the extent that it is impossible to continue the marriage under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, as the responsibilities are no longer significant.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

appellees

Busan High Court Decision 89Reu297 delivered on May 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

As to the ground of appeal by the respondent

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, even though the claimant and the respondent had three women after marriage, but they had a separate house around October 196 as they had been organized by the respondent, and the claimant did not comply with the request despite the respondent's taking her home, and the claimant did not comply with the request one year after the respondent went home, and formed an internal relationship with the non-party 1 since the time when she became the respondent's going home, and the respondent operated the restaurant with the non-party 2 from 1972 to 20 years, and the respondent and the respondent recognized the fact that she had been living together with the non-party 2 for 20 years until now without the substance of the couple. The above fact-finding of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above facts-finding, and there is no further error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim for divorce under Article 85 of the Civil Act.

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.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)