(a) Aggravation of a claim for divorce by the responsible spouse;

(b) The case where a preliminary request for the materials of counter-defensive appellate court was made on the condition that the request for confluence may be accepted;

A. Even if the claimant is detained upon the complaint of the appellee and punished for the failure that is difficult to recover from the marriage due to the coolingness as the husband and wife, if the claimant is extremely maltreated by the respondent and the respondent wishes to recover from the normal matrimonial relationship, the claimant's claim for divorce by the responsible spouse is groundless.

B. In a case where a preliminary claim for the payment of consolation money was made on the condition that the claim for divorce would be accepted, if the court rejected the claim for divorce with no reason, it is unnecessary to proceed to the claim for a second instance.

Article 840 subparag. 3, Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

A

B

Seoul Family Court (87D3543, 7979) of the first instance court

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

The appellant's main appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the appellant in the first and second instances.

In this trial: The appellant (only the respondent in the second instance, the respondent in the second instance, and the respondent (only the appellant in the second instance, and the respondent in the second instance) shall be divorced.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

The first instance court: The claimant shall pay to the respondent an amount of KRW 30,00,000 and an amount of KRW 25,000 per annum from the day following the delivery of a duplicate of the second instance judgment to the day of full payment, where the claimant and the respondent are divorced by the claim at this instance.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the claimant and a declaration of provisional execution.

Claimant: The appellant shall cancel the part of the appellant's losing claim concerning the counterclaim, and the respondent's counterclaim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the appellees in the first and second instances.

A respondent shall revoke the part of the judgment of a member of the Council against the respondent.

The claimant's claim for the main trial is dismissed.

If the claimant and the respondent have been divorced by the claim of this Court, the claimant shall pay to the respondent an amount of 22,00,000,000 won with the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the claim of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed at the claimant's expense in both the first and second trials, and provisional execution for the part demanding payment of money shall be declared.

1. In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 (No dispute over the establishment of the case), the claimant and the respondent may recognize the fact that there are two South Koreas as the husband and wife who had been married on Nov. 7, 1982 and reported on Sep. 22, 1983, beginning with the marriage ceremony and living together on Nov. 7, 1982.

2. The claimant asserts as follows as the cause of the claim in this case.

(1) From the beginning of the new marriage, the claimant and the respondent lived with the dead parent in the city, and the respondent's family members did not look at at all the family members who raise the defendant's complaint, and only go out of the country, and they frequently used the deceased's family members, and created family settlement, such as paying the new family members' attention.

(2) At the end of the debate with the claimant, the parent of the claimant was forced the claimant and the respondent to live separately by making one square of nearby rooms around September 1983, and it was discovered that the defendant had sold the marriage plaque, which belongs to the market price of 2 million won, and changed it into a fake, and there was a dispute between the claimant and the respondent as a result of the fact that the defendant was discovered that the defendant had sold the marriage plaque, which belongs to the market price of 2 million won, and there was a difference between the claimant and the respondent.

(3) However, the respondent filed a complaint against the claimant on the ground of the above circumstances and filed a request for divorce, and the appellant who was detained on the ground of the request for divorce was sentenced to a suspended sentence. While the claimant is detained, the respondent continued to submit a written petition to the detention house that the defendant would not enter the detention house, and the respondent continued to submit the written petition to the judge in charge, and the petitioner was released by the suspended sentence on October 25, 1984, upon the defendant being released by the suspended sentence on October 25, 1984, the respondent withdrawn the request for divorce filed earlier, left the two children alone, and led the claimant to take it back.

(4) After that, around March 1985, the respondent has been going to move to her child, and therefore, the mother of the claimant's mother has been living to the her mother, the her mother has been standing in the knee-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-g

Therefore, the marriage between the claimant and the respondent is so far as it has become impossible to continue the marriage due to the abandonment of the respondent's bad faith against the claimant, unfair treatment of the claimant and his/her mother's father, etc., and thus, it is possible to continue the marriage.

3. 이에 대하여 피청구인은 청구인의 주장사실을 부인하면서 오히려 청구인과 그 부모들이 피청구인과의 동거생활을 거절하여 별거상태가 계속되고 있을 뿐이라고 주장하므로 살피건대, 성립에 각 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증(주민등록표등본), 갑 제3호증(확인서), 을 제1호증의 9, 14(각 진술조서), 을 제1호증의 10,11,12,12,16,17(각 피의자신문조서), 을 제1호증의 15(고소취소장), 을 제2호증의 2(공소장), 을 제2호증의 3,4(각 공판조서), 을 제5호증의 2(심판청구서), 3(조사보고서), 4,5(각 심리조서), 원심증인 C의 증언에 의하여 진정성립을 각 인정할 수 있는 을 제1호증의 4(고소장), 5(상해진단서), 6(최고장), 7(추가고소장), 8(전당표), 을 제3호증의 2(배상명령신청서), 3(진료비계산서), 4(참고자료제출), 5(진료비영수서), 을 제4호증(진술서)의 각 기재와 원심증인 D, C, E의 각 증언(다만, 위 D의 증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 청구인과 피청구인은 혼인초부터 가내공업을 영위하는 청구인의 부모집에서 청구인의 가족들과 함께 동거하였는데, 피청구인은 청구인의 모친이 모든 집안살림을 맡고 있으면서 피청구인이 쓰는 사소한 용돈마저 일일이 간섭하고, 어쩌다가 피청구인에게 사소한 잘못이 있을 경우 심하게 나무라는 등 심한 시집살이를 하게 되어, 이에 대하여 피청구인이 청구인에게 따지고 대들면 청구인은 이를 묵살하여 가정불화가 끊이지 아니하였던 사실, 그러다가 청구인의 부모들이 1984.2.경 이웃에 있는 방한칸을 얻어 청구인과 피청구인에게 따로 살림을 하게 하였으나 청구인은 방이 협소하고 작업상 필요하다는 이유로 거의 매일같이 그의 부모집에서 잠을 자고, 피청구인의 반대에도 불구하고 아이를 부모집에 맡기는 일이 잦았으며, 또한 피청구인이 결혼패물을 친가에 빼돌렸던 일이 탄로나는 등 하여 계속 부부사이의 불화가 심하여지던 중, 1984.4.10.경 청구인이 그날 아침 아이를 부모집에 데려간 후 피청구인에게 돌려주지 아니하려 하여 피청구인이 이를 따지고 대들자, 청구인이 삽으로 피청구인의 옆구리 등을 때려 피청구인에게 좌측 제7,8,9 늑골골절상 등의 중상을 가한 사실, 그런데 피청구인이 위와 같은 상처를 입고 길가에 쓰러져 있었음에도 불구하고 청구인과 그의 어머니는 이를 보고도 아무런 구호조치를 취하지 아니하고 방치하여 동네사람들이 서둘러 피청구인을 병원에 입원시켰는가 하면, 피청구인이 병원에 입원한 후에도 청구인 등이 치료비를 전혀 지불하지 아니하는 등 치료에 성의를 보이지 아니하자, 피청구인은 그의 친정아버지의 종용에 따라 1984.5.9.경 청구인과 그의 어머니를 상대로 형사고소를(다만, 청구인의 어머니에 대하여는 1984.6.11. 고소를 취소하였음), 같은 해 5.29.경 청구인을 상대로 이혼심판청구를 각 제기하였고, 이에 따라 청구인은 같은 달 31. 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반의 죄로 구속되어 재판을 받은 후 같은 해 10.25.경 집행유예의 선고로 석방되었으며, 그 후 피청구인은 위 이혼심판청구사건의 심리가 계속되던 중 같은 해 12.14. 청구인과 혼인생활을 계속하기로 원만히 합의하여 위 이혼심판청구를 취하한 사실, 위와 같은 일이 있은 후 피청구인은 다시 청구인과 동거하고자 청구인이 거주하는 청구인의 부모집에 수차 찾아갔으나, 청구인의 부모들이 완강하게 피청구인을 받아들이지 아니하여 현재까지 부득이한 별거상태가 계속되고 있는 사실, 피청구인은 청구인측의 앞서 본 부당한 대우에 격분하여 친정아버지의 종용에 따라 청구인을 고소하여 청구인으로 하여금 처벌을 받게 하였으나, 현재 어린 두 아이의 어머니로서 청구인 및 그 가족들과의 과거의 불화를 청산하고 정상적인 혼인생활을 영위할 것을 진심으로 희망하고 있는 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 어긋나는 원심증인 D의 일부증언은 앞서 채용한 증거들에 비추어 믿을 수 없으며, 달리 이를 번복할 자료가 없고, 위 인정사실 이외의 청구인 주장사실은 앞서 배척한 증거 이외에는 이를 인정할 자료가 없다.

According to the above facts of recognition, considering the motive and circumstance where the claimant and the respondent are living separately, the respondent may not be deemed to have deserted the claimant as an intention to discontinue the marital life without any justifiable reason. Further, even if the claimant is detained and punished upon the defendant's complaint, and the situation where the marriage between the claimant and the respondent becomes difficult to recover due to the coldness of the situation where the marriage between the claimant and the respondent has occurred, the primary responsibility is that the claimant is extremely unfair treatment, such as not taking any relief measures against the respondent. Thus, in this case where the respondent wishes to recover the normal marital relationship with the claimant, the respondent's claim for divorce of the principal judgment of the claimant, which is the responsible spouse, is groundless.

4. Thus, the respondent's claim for consolation money is not required to look at the respondent's claim for consolation money in preliminary case on the condition that the divorce claim of the claimant is accepted, and the plaintiff's appeal is unfair, and the respondent's appeal is justified, and thus the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the charge of the claimant who lost all the first and second trials.

Judges Yoon Sang-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)