Whether the failure of marital relations falls under the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, in case where both spouses are liable for the failure of marital relations.

If the claimant and the respondent respectively have a de facto marital relationship with another person and have given birth to a child between them, it is impossible for the above two persons to return to the husband and wife again, and the failure of the above marital relationship is liable to both the claimant and the respondent, which constitutes a case where there is any other serious cause that makes it difficult to continue the marriage under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Article 840 of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

Daegu High Court Decision 84Reu156 delivered on October 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellee.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that accepted the claimant's claim by holding that the claimant is also liable to the defendant, since 1942, the respondent entered into a de facto marriage relationship with the non-party 1, and produced and living together one among them, and the claimant entered into a de facto marriage relationship with the non-party 2, around 1947, while living in Japan in Japan and the non-party 2, living in Japan, and it is impossible for the claimant and the respondent to return to the spouse again after having confirmed the fact that the divorce agreement was reached between the defendant and the non-party 2 after he returned temporarily in 1962, and the divorce agreement was reached between the defendant and the non-party 1, and it is not possible for the claimant and the respondent to return to the other spouse again. In light of the process of the court below's examination and the records, the above measures of the court below and the judgment of evidence are justified.

The argument in the lawsuit is that the respondent living together with the non-party 1 and entered into a de facto marital relationship is inevitable for the relief, and this is returned to the liability of the claimant who abandoned the respondent. Therefore, the court below's decision which accepted the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse is erroneous in the legal principles as to judicial divorce, but Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the former Civil Code provides for other important reasons that it is difficult to continue the marriage as a cause for divorce due to the failure principle, and it is impossible for the plaintiff and the respondent to return to the couple again. The failure of the marital relationship between the couple and the defendant is not possible. It is clear that the failure of the couple's relations depends on the grounds as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the above Civil Code, and it is not clear that it follows such reasons.

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 Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)