[1] The meaning of "where there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code"

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim for divorce on the ground that the wife of 78 years of age filed a claim for divorce against the husband of 92 years of age on the ground that there is "a serious reason which makes it difficult to continue the marriage" under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code

[3] Whether each subparagraph of Article 840 of the Civil Code, which provides the grounds for judicial divorce, constitutes separate independent grounds for divorce (affirmative), and whether the court may accept one of them and accept the Plaintiff’s claim where the Plaintiff, who filed the claim for divorce, claims several of the causes stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 840 of the Civil Code (affirmative)

[1] "When there is a serious reason why it is difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code" refers to the case where the marital relationship corresponding to the nature of the marriage that should be based on the difficulty and trust between the married couple has reached a failure to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and compelling the continuation of the marital life to the extent that it becomes impossible for one spouse to join.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim for divorce on the ground that the wife of 78 years of age filed a claim for divorce against the husband of 92 years of age on the ground that there is "a serious reason which makes it difficult to continue the marriage" under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code

[3] Article 840 of the Civil Code concerning the grounds for judicial divorce constitutes separate grounds for divorce for each subparagraph of the same Article, and in a case where several grounds as provided in each subparagraph of the above subparagraphs are claimed in the petition for divorce, the court may accept either of them and accept the claim.

[1] Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 840 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu24 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1393), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1067 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2158), Supreme Court Decision 97Meu612 delivered on February 12, 199 (Gong1999, 661), Supreme Court Decision 99Meu180 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong200Sang, 49) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 62Da812 delivered on November 31, 1963 (Gong11-1, 50)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Kim & Lee, Attorneys Lee Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Reu3832 delivered on August 25, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 5

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff and the defendant's non-party 1 (the non-party 195 life) who had been forced to move away from 197 years to 195, and the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's party 9's party 1's party

Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code provides that "if there is a serious reason why it is difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce", "if there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage" means a case where the communal living relationship corresponding to the essence of the marriage which should be based on the difficulty and trust between the couple has reached an unreparable situation and compelling the continuance of that marital life becomes an unreparable pain for one spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 97Meu612 delivered on February 12, 199).

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case on the ground that the defendant's usual living method, the cause and response method of the extinguishment in the marriage life, the defendant's forced preparation of a reflective document after the settlement in the previous divorce lawsuit, the circumstance where the defendant's non-payment of living expenses, and the circumstances where the defendant's property donation was made, etc. are justified. The judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case on the ground that the common living relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover from the plaintiff's property, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the divorce claim or res judicata effect of the responsible spouse.

All of the grounds of appeal on this point are rejected.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 840 of the Civil Code on the Grounds for Judicial Divorce constitutes separate independent grounds for each subparagraph of the same Article. In the event that the plaintiff claims several causes as provided in each subparagraph of the above subparagraphs while seeking a divorce, the court may accept either of them and accept the plaintiff's claim.

On the contrary, the court's argument that the plaintiff's grounds for divorce exist in determining the grounds for divorce, first of all, and that the cause for divorce can be finally determined only when it is not recognized. Accordingly, the argument in the grounds for appeal that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the status under each subparagraph of Article 840 of the Civil Act cannot be accepted.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

The court below determined that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant falls under the category of "where there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage" as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and immediately accepted the plaintiff's claim for divorce based on it, and did not determine whether the marriage relation between the plaintiff and the defendant falls under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act on the premise that there is a reason as stipulated in subparagraphs 2

The assertion that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds under subparagraphs 2 through 3 of Article 840 of the Civil Act is merely derived from arbitrary interpretation of the judgment below on the basis of an independent opinion as to the status and order of judgment under each subparagraph of Article 840 of the Civil Act, and therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal as to this part is without merit.

All of the arguments in the grounds of appeal on this point are rejected.

4. 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 Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)