The case affirming the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse

In a case where there is no intention to continue the marriage with the responsible spouse, and in a case where the other spouse refuses the divorce only on the surface even though there is no intention to continue the marriage with the responsible spouse, it is reasonable to accept the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse, which is to resolve the failure of marriage even if there is a fault on the responsible spouse having entered into an illegal relationship with another woman.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu85 delivered on March 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu28 delivered on April 14, 1987

The respondent in Anti-Adjudication

[Judgment of the court below]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by an appellee.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the respondent was not present at a high school or married with 1 other than the above respondent during the period of 00 days after 10 days after 20 days after 17 days after 20 days after 17 days after 20 days after 17 days after 3 days after 17 days after 17 days after 17 days after 20 days after 17 days after 20 days after 17 days after 3 days after 3 days after 17 days after 3 days after 17 days after 3 days after 17 days after 3 days after 3 days after 17 days after 17 days after 3 days after 17 days after 17 days after 3 days after 2 days after 3 days after 10 days after 3 days after 2 days after 10 days after 2 days after 1, 1981 after 1 days after 2 days after 2 days after 2 days after 2 days after 2 days after 2 days after 3 days after 3 days after 2 days after 2 days after 2 days after 2 days after 10 days after 3 days after 3 days after 3 days after 1 days after 20 days after 3 days after 3 days after 3 days after 3 days after 1.

2. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below seems to be justifiable and it is not found that there is an error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as pointed out above. If the facts are as seen above, a marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent has occurred due to the respondent's refusal of marital life as the air condition and the appellant's husband and wife, etc. due to the respondent's fault, and as such, if the appellant reached a warning due to a cause attributable to the respondent's fault, and the situation has deepened with both the respondent and the claimant's fault, such as the respondent's establishment of an illegal relationship with the non-party 2, and if the respondent oppose the divorce of this case, the respondent's objection to the divorce of this case, but only one claimant has not been found for a long time after the lapse of 8 years, and the appellant has not been tried to divorce with the non-party 2 and the respondent's intention to continue the divorce of this case without being able to reach a judgment of the court below, and it is difficult to see that the respondent and the respondent's intention to divorce of this case.

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 Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)