The case affirming the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse

If a female filed a complaint with a spouse Gap as a crime of adultery and filed a sentence against it, and agreed to receive consolation money, child support, and divorce with a free will, and if a male and female living together with a female and left the male and female to South and North Korea without being 10 years of birth, it is difficult to deem that he/she has an intention to continue the marriage with the male and female, and if a female has no intention to continue the marriage with the male and female, even though he/she did not have an intention to continue the marriage with the male and female, if the marriage with the male and female is not complied with on the surface, even if it was committed by an unlawful act against the male and female, even if it was committed in the beginning, it shall not be deemed that the liability for the failure which is currently caused is not attributable to the male and female, and thus, a claim for divorce of the above marriage shall be accepted.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu28 delivered on April 14, 1987, 86Meu87 delivered on September 22, 1987, and 87Meu44 and 45 delivered on December 8, 1987

Claimant

[Defendant-Appellant] Attorney Park Jae-in, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Reu143 delivered on June 29, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance. The appellant and the defendant reported marriage on May 27, 1964 to three married children. The appellant and the defendant filed a complaint for the crime of adultery with the non-claimer on November 1, 1974 by the appellant and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months in the court, and the appellant was released from the court on May 19, 1976. The appellant and the respondent agreed to divorce with a free will of June 18 of the same year after the appellant was released from the court, and instead they were assigned to the appellee, the appellant and the respondent paid 800,000 won to the appellee as consolation money and child support, and thereafter the appellant and the respondent have been left for ten years without any awareness, and the appellant and the respondent have concluded the divorce agreement merely on the ground that they had concluded the divorce agreement, and acknowledged the fact that they had born between the non-claimer and the non-child 2.

2. Reviewing the records, the court below's findings of fact seems to be just and it is not found that there is an illegality in misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as pointed out in the arguments. If the facts are the same as above, the defendant oppose the divorce of this case, although the defendant raised an objection against the divorce of this case, he filed a complaint against the claimant, and agreed to receive consolation money and child support as a free will, and then leave the claimant living together with the claimant and give birth between him and his child, and then it is difficult to view that the defendant had an intention to continue the marriage with the claimant over the last half of the thousand-year period without mutual awareness. If the defendant did not have an intention to continue the marriage with the claimant, even though the defendant did not intend to continue the marriage with the claimant, the defendant cannot be held liable for the failure of divorce of this case should be resolved (see the judgment of the court below 1984).

Although the reasoning of the court below is insufficient, the conclusion that the claimant's request for divorce of this case is justified in its conclusion that the plaintiff's request for divorce of this case constitutes a case where there is a serious reason that makes it difficult to continue marriage between the claimant and the respondent under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the claim for divorce which affected the conclusion of the judgment as alleged in the arguments. It is not

3. 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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)