A case where the other party does not allow a divorce claim of the responsible spouse only on the ground that the other party does not refuse divorce only on the surface in writing or retaliation appraisal;

The case where the other party does not allow a divorce claim of the responsible spouse on the ground that the other party does not refuse the divorce only on the surface in writing or retaliation appraisal.

Article 840 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Reu3505 delivered on September 22, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below rejected the evidence consistent with the grounds for divorce of the plaintiff's assertion and judged that the liability of the defendant for the dissolution of the marriage of this case was all legitimate, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, which points out in the process of the lawsuit. There is no reason for the argument.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Although the other spouse also files a counterclaim for divorce against a claim for divorce by the responsible spouse, or the other spouse merely rejects a divorce on the surface in misunderstandings or retaliation sentiments, in actual cases where the intention of divorce is objectively apparent, such as the continuance of marriage and the other spouse’s act that is substantially incompatible with the continuance of marriage, it is reasonable to accept it even if the claim for divorce is filed by the spouse who is fully responsible for the failure of marriage (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu28, Apr. 14, 1987).

However, according to the judgment of the court below and the records, the defendant, who is frequent of the violence against the plaintiff against the defendant, filed a divorce lawsuit against the plaintiff on November 21, 198, but withdrawn the lawsuit at the plaintiff's request on January 16, 1989, and around March 17, 1990, the plaintiff again assaults the defendant, and the defendant and his parents requested a divorce, and the plaintiff agreed to prepare one apartment bond as a consolation money and make a divorce under the name of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not comply with the agreement, but filed a divorce lawsuit in this case. On March 20, 191, 1991, the plaintiff and the two children among the plaintiff and the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff as the crime of injuring the plaintiff on March 20, 198, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the above agreement with his father and mother and their parents from March 17, 1990, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff did not have any other condition of divorce in this case.

Therefore, the decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's claim for divorce, which is the responsible spouse, is just, and there is no reason to argue that there is a misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.