The case rejecting the husband's claim for divorce against the wife who was separated on the ground of infertility with the Sinmanian

As the head of South and North Korea, the applicant's position to subsidize the living expenses and school expenses of both mothers is wrong that the respondent did not understand sufficient understanding of the respondent, and thus, if the claimant who married with the mother and her mother did not look at her consciousness while living together with her mother and her mother and her mother did not look at her consciousness, it is improper that the claimant filed for divorce against the respondent because her spouse did not voluntarily leave her duty of living, support and cooperation as her mother.

Article 840 of the Civil Act

Claimant

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 89Reu662 delivered on May 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the appellant and the respondent reported their marriage on May 2, 1983. The plaintiff and the defendant were married with the claimant and the defendant living together with the defendant on the three occasions of Msan-dong (hereinafter omitted) and delivered three children among them. The claimant, as the head of South and North Korea, were to assist the defendant in living expenses and school expenses. The defendant used the defendant's monthly salary as a guiding money, etc., because the defendant could not fully understand the situation of the claimant from the beginning of the new marriage, and the defendant could not assist the plaintiff's mother and his mother at all, so the conflict and extinguishment were caused between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it was just in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff and the defendant did not cooperate with the defendant at the same time as the time of the original judgment, and that the plaintiff and the defendant were living together with the defendant, and that the defendant refused to live together with the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, they did not agree with the defendant's own opinion to recognize the fact that they did not have been living together with the plaintiff and the defendant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, 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.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)