The case citing a claim for divorce by the other spouse where one spouse suffers from an incurable mental disorder and the whole of family members suffer from an difficult pain;

A family is not simply a community of only the couple, but has a function to protect all the members of the family, such as their children, and one side of the couple's family has a function to protect their community life. If one side of the couple's family has returned to an incurable mental illness, and the disease is not simply nursing or predicted, but constantly demanding the whole members of the family to make a constant mental and physical sacrifice in light of economic circumstances, and if the other family has reached a state where many financial expenditures are required and the other family's suffering is not known at any time and after the end, the other spouse cannot compel the other spouse to live without any limit according to the spouse's miscellaneous duty. Even if the marital relationship is terminated, even if the other spouse is unable to be protected due to the limitation of the spouse's aid from the spouse, this can only be expected as a matter of support between individuals or social support, such as a claim for division of property, etc. between the divorced parties.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Appellant-Appellee

Appellant

Busan High Court Decision 88Reu93 delivered on April 27, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal by the special representative are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) concluded on December 10, 1982 with the claimant on December 10, 1982, after having received a marriage report, and the respondent who became a couple with each other on March 8, 1985, gave birth to the second child on and around November 1, 1986; and (b) conducted hospital treatment over several occasions after diagnosis by a specialized doctor on the diagnosis of a mental disorder; but (c) continued to grow home care and aggravation; (d) the claimant and the child were divers from verbal abuse; and (e) the divers of the claimant and the child were absent without permission, and their ability to live in the office without money; and (e) even if it was extremely difficult for the claimant to receive judicial treatment, such as physical disability, emotional distress; and (e) even if it was extremely difficult for the defendant to receive a divorce, the lower court should have determined that the defendant’s mental disability was the only means of treatment and treatment for the remaining time of marriage, and thus, it should not be able to the extent of the respondent’s.

I wish to agree with each other and make every effort to maintain the marital life by understanding and protecting the other party as a patriotic circumstance. Thus, the other party should be responsible for protecting and supporting the other party even if one of the married life has been affected by an incurable disease. However, although the family is not merely merely a community of the married couple, but also a community of all the members related thereto such as his/her children, etc., it is transferred to one of the married couple's mental hospitals with the function of protecting the common life of all the members, and the disease is not merely nursing and emotionally and emotionally, but it is not expected that the whole members of the family have constantly mental and physical sacrifice, and in light of economic circumstances, many financial expenditures are required, and the other family's pain is not known until the other family's pain is finished, the judgment of the court below is justified to the purport that the other spouse cannot be forced to live without any limited misunderstanding of legal principles as to divorce.

On the other hand, as pointed out in the arguments, the circumstances that the respondent would be unable to suffer severe economic suffering and to be protected as the aid from his/her spouse is restricted in the future, should also be taken into account. However, this should only be able to expect support to a certain extent as a matter of personal or social support, such as a property division claim between the divorce parties, etc., and the applicant may not be forced to suffer unilateral suffering due to such circumstances. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be 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)