(a) Whether a spouse constitutes a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act in a case where one spouse suffers from an incurable mental disorder and the whole family member suffers from an difficult pain (affirmative);

(b) The case holding that if it is difficult for the wife to lead a normal family life due to the reason that the wife was friendly for the treatment of mental fission, and the mother was living together with another woman immediately after the addition, while the mother was living together with the other woman since the wife did not completely recover until now, it constitutes a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act

A. The family is not merely a mere marital community, but has a function to protect the community life of all the members related to the family, such as their children, and the family has a function to protect the common life of all the members related to the family. The disease is returned to an incurable mental disorder by one of the married couple, and the disease is not simply able to nurse with pet and static care or can be predicted as other diseases, such as other diseases, and in addition to the demand for constant mental and physical sacrifice to all the members of the family, if the family requires a large amount of financial expenditure for treatment, and if the other family suffering from the other family's suffering from the suffering that the other family does not end at any time, the other spouse cannot force the other spouse to live without any limit in accordance with the duty of care between the spouse. Thus, this constitutes a judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

B. The case holding that the marital relationship between the wife and the wife is a judicial divorce ground under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the wife’s mental division of the wife, who did not have any responsibility for the treatment of the mental fission but did not provide treatment, and the wife believed that the marital relationship with the wife was actually terminated because the wife was friendly for the treatment of the mental fission, and the wife did not pay medical expenses or living expenses to the wife, and the wife was living together with another woman immediately after the addition, and the wife’s mental division was not completely cured until now, and it is difficult to lead a normal family life because it is anticipated that the recurrence would occur even if it was not completely cured and temporarily improved, the marital relationship is deemed to continue from the time when the wife was married to her husband due to the mental division of the wife who was unable to take any responsibility to the point of the time to the point of the failure until the date of the marriage.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Meu446 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 748) decided December 24, 1991 (Gong192, 682)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant

Busan High Court Decision 89Reu1351 delivered on August 23, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the appellant and the respondent filed a marriage report on January 18, 1971 with one male and female on which they had not been able to file a claim for divorce from May 1974. Since the respondent showed symptoms of mental disorder, the respondent made efforts to treat the respondent as a mental patient from February 1, 1975 to March 16 of the same year. But the respondent's symptoms do not need to be treated as the respondent's mental treatment treatment for the next 7 months (at least 3 months) and there was no need to receive treatment treatment for a long period of time and to protect the respondent's mental health care and mental science. On the other hand, the defendant filed a claim for divorce from the 19th day of the same year to the 19th day of the same year, and the defendant did not appear to have been able to file a claim for divorce from the 19th day of the same mental disease to the 10th day.

2. As a result, one side of the married couple must cooperate with each other, understand and protect the other as a patriotic situation, and make best efforts to maintain the marital life, even if one side of the married life has returned to an incurable disease, the other party shall be responsible for protecting the other side and supporting the other side by making every effort. However, as the family has a function to protect the common life of all the members related thereto such as their children, etc., not merely only only only only only merely within the community but also within the community of the married couple, and it is not possible for one side of the married couple to take care of an incurable mental disorder, or to take care of the other side, and it is difficult for the court below to see that the other side's mental and physical sacrifice, as it does not require the other side members of the family to make a continuous mental and physical sacrifice, and even if the other side's pain may not incur any pain, it cannot be seen as having been forced by the appellant to live without any limit in the marriage relationship between the other spouse and the other spouse, and it cannot be viewed as having been forced by the appellant to have not been able until now (see, 196).

3. Therefore, the court below's fact-finding is erroneous, and there is no reason to criticize the judgment below on the premise that the court below did not recognize it.

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 Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)