The case which recognized a divorce on the ground that the husband took unfair treatment to make it impossible for the husband to fulfill his or her part as a worker;

A case where a wife recognized a divorce on the ground that her husband was treated unfairly by making it impossible for her husband to fulfill his or her part as a member of his or her duty.

Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Kim Tae-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Reu89 delivered on October 21, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellee.

The grounds of appeal by the respondent's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the appellant completed the doctoral degree course of Korea University University, and is working as professor of Korea University after the professor of the College of Hancheon National University. The appellant and the respondent continued to work continuously due to the difference of the nature of the appellant, and the respondent made a divorce agreement over September 25, 197 with the applicant at any time. The respondent arbitrarily sold the applicant's books at his own discretion and sold the quota of the claimant's books at his own discretion, and the claimant's personal thickness did not seem to have reached 4 times of marriage and caused the defendant to be deprived of 10,000,000 students' families by 14 times of marriage and 4 times of marriage. The court below decided that the respondent's act of compelling the defendant to return the defendant's mental illness to 6 days of marriage without doubt as well as 1,000,000,0000 won of the applicant's name and 4 times of marriage, and that the respondent's act of compelling it to return the defendant's family.

In comparison with the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below, it is justified and pride, and there is no error in the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, misapprehension of the principle of pleading, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 840 subparag. 3 and No. 6 of the Civil Act, and there is no record to conclude that the failure of the marital life between the claimant and the respondent was limited to the cause attributable to the claimant. In addition, the court below did not accept the claim for divorce of this case on the ground that the claim for divorce of this case was filed on the ground of the fact before December 9, 1983 and six months prior to the filing of the claim for divorce of this case, and it is clear that a series of acts constituted grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, including the fact that the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case was extinguished after the lapse of six months as provided in Article 842 of the Civil Act.

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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)