Whether it is a ground for judicial divorce to agree to divorce and to pay consolation money.

Even though the claimant and the respondent agreed to divorce and the appellant paid consolation money to the respondent, it can not be a ground for judicial divorce.

Article 840 of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

Gwangju High Court Decision 78Reu34 delivered on December 26, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal by the claimant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's assertion that the defendant was living together with the non-party 1 from May 5, 1977 to the date of the defendant's genuine result of finding false facts about the claimant, and the defendant's assertion that the defendant living together with the non-party 1 had no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and the claimant and the respondent formed a simple family for twenty years in the past the marriage, but the plaintiff and the respondent formed an overlapping relationship with the non-party 2 from around 1963 and formed a living together with the non-party 2 and caused a difference in the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the respondent due to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's living, it is hard to solve the plaintiff's diet due to the above act as seen above, and the defendant's argument that the non-party 1, 3, and 4 were not entitled to receive consolation money or non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 7 grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)