(a) A claim for judicial divorce by the spouse liable for the failure of marriage;

B. Whether it constitutes a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act to revoke a complaint and receive consolation money on the condition that the complaint is lodged and divorced from a livered father and a her violence.

(c) Whether a person who has re-born with another woman after having received a divorce judgment by public notice in the first instance court, becomes a reason for making it impossible to continue the marriage between the appellant and the appellee in the event of the respondent's appeal after completion of the appeal, or a special reason for admitting the claimant's claim for divorce by maintaining the judgment in the first instance (negative)

A. There is no judicial claim for divorce against the failure of marriage without special circumstances, such as the respondent’s intention to continue the marriage at all and without any intention to live together with the respondent, and the respondent does not simply respond to the divorce in order to cause the claimant’s abduction.

B. As long as the family has been broken down due to the adultery of the claimant and the victim actually assaults the respondent, the respondent filed a complaint with the husband to divorce (the divorce has been revoked) and paid consolation money, barring any special circumstance, such as that the marital relationship has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible for both parties to resolve the substance of the marital relationship for a considerable period of time due to the intention of divorce, the existence of such agreement cannot be said to have a serious reason to make it impossible to continue marriage.

C. In the first instance trial on a divorce petition filed by the claimant against the respondent, the judgment in favor of the respondent was rendered by public notice, and the judgment became formally final and conclusive. Accordingly, in a case where the claimant reported the divorce with the respondent and reported the marriage with the woman who is in transit between the above "B" after the respondent filed a final appeal by the respondent, the circumstance that if the claimant is in a state of divorce and the husband are in a state of divorce, the marriage between the claimant and the counterpart shall be revoked unless the claimant is divorced, shall not be deemed as a special circumstance that makes it impossible for the claimant and the respondent to continue the marriage, or that the respondent shall accept the claim for divorce by maintaining the judgment of the first instance.

Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act

A. (2) Supreme Court Decision 82Meu54 delivered on December 28, 1982 (Gong1983,424) (Gong1983,424) delivered on May 11, 1990 (Gong1990,1260) delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong190,2155)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 90Reu144 delivered on December 7, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 그 거시의 증거에 의하여 청구인과 피청구인은 1979.12. 혼인한 이후 시부모를 모시고 살아왔는데 청구인은 혼인초부터 다른 여자들과 간통을 하여 오다가 1984.12.에는 집을 나가 소외 인과 동거하기 시작하였고 1985.3.경 피청구인에게 이 사실이 알려진 바 되어 이러한 불륜관계를 청산하겠다고 약속하였음에도 다시 집을 나가 소외인과 동거하며 아이까지 출산하여 피청구인과의 사이에서 출산한 양 출생신고를 한 사실, 피청구인은 청구인이 언젠가는 돌아오리라는 기대를 가지고 시부모를 모시고 살아왔는데 1988.9.경 시부모가 청구인과 소외인의 동거사실을 알면서도 피청구인에게 감추어 왔고 심지어 아파트전세를 얻어주는 등 이를 도와 온 사실을 우연히 알게 되어 이를 항의하는 과정에서 1988.11.5. 시아버지로부터 구타를 당하여 전치 2주의 상처까지 입게되자 청구인과의 이혼심판을 청구하고 청구인과 소외인을 간통죄와 공정증서원본불실기재죄(위 허위의 출생신고에 대한 것임)로, 시아버지를 상해죄로 고소하고 시댁을 나와 친정집으로 돌아간 사실, 청구인과 소외인은 위 고소로 구속기소되고 시아버지는 피청구인의 고소취소로 불기소되었는데 그 후 피청구인과 시아버지 사이에 합의가 이루어져서 같은 해 12.29. 청구인 부부가 이혼하기로 하는 조건으로 피청구인은 위 고소를 취소하고 시아버지로부터 위자료로 금 70,000,000원을 지급받았으며 그 고소취소로 청구인과 소외인은 1989.1.25. 집행유예의 선고를 받고 석방되었으나 이후 계속 동거해 오고 있는 사실 및 피청구인이 제기한 이혼심판사건은 피청구인의 불출석으로 취하간주되었고 피청구인은 친정에서 거주하면서 언제인가는 청구인이 가정으로 돌아오리라는 기대를 가지고 가끔 시댁에 들리면서 이혼에는 응할 수 없다는 의사를 표시하고 있는 사실을 인정하고 피청구인이 사실은 혼인을 계속할 의사 없이 오로지 청구인에게 보복하기 위하여 이혼에 응하지 않고 있다는 청구인의 주장을 배척한 다음 청구인 부부의 혼인생활이 위와 같은 고소와 피청구인의 가출에 의하여 돌이킬수 없을 정도로 파탄되었고 이미 이혼의 합의까지 있어 위자료도 지급되었으므로 민법 제840조 제6호 소정의 이혼사유에 해당한다고 하는 청구인의 주장에 대하여는 이 부부의 혼인생활이 파탄에 빠졌다 해도 이는 청구인의 불륜에 전적인 책임이 있는 것인 만큼 유책배우자인 청구인으로서는 그 파탄을 이유로 재판상 이혼을 청구할 수는 없고 피청구인이 청구인과의 이혼에 합의하고 위자료까지 받았다 해도 그 사유만으로는 재판상이혼사유가 될 수 없다고 판단하였다.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below does not show that it is against the rule of evidence that the defendant did not recognize that the defendant did not have any intention to continue the marriage and that the husband is waiting to turn back at any time is against the rule of experience, and there is no other violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no intention to live together with the defendant to continue the marriage, and the defendant does not simply respond to the divorce to the divorce in order to force the defendant's abduction. (See Supreme Court Decision 89Meu112 delivered on September 25, 190) without special circumstances, the claimant who is fully responsible for the failure of marriage can not be deemed to have a judicial divorce claim (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu12 delivered on September 25, 190). Since the defendant did not actually assault the defendant in the process of pursuing it, it cannot be deemed that the decision of the court below is just and just in light of social norms guaranteed by law, even if the defendant did not have any special reason for divorce, such as the agreement to divorce between the husband and the defendant, and the above.

In addition, according to the records, when the summons against the respondent was made by service by public notice in the first instance court and the judgment in favor of the respondent became final and conclusive formally, it can be known that the appellant was under a heavy divorce by reporting the divorce with the respondent and reporting the marriage with the non-party after the respondent filed a written appeal for the completion of the appeal in this case. Therefore, if the claimant's husband and wife are not divorced, the marriage between the claimant and the non-party shall be revoked. However, in this case where the respondent filed a lawful appeal for the completion of the marriage, the respondent cannot be deemed to be a reason for not continuing the marriage with the claimant or there are special circumstances for not allowing the respondent to accept the claim for divorce by maintaining the first instance court's judgment. Therefore, there is no merit to discuss this point.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, 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.

November 22, 1991

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)