The case holding that a matrimonial relationship has reached the marbity because it was not found that a way to harmonize a religious life and a family life.

Although the failure of the marriage between Gap and Eul does not intend to cooperate with Eul in understanding Eul's religious life with a view to understanding Eul's religious life, it is possible to find the cause of the failure as well as the remaining church activities that have prejudice against Eul's witness and vice versa, and even if it is thought that it is difficult to think of the cause of the failure. However, even though Eul had to find a way to harmonize Eul's religious life and family life with Eul's religious life without making such efforts, it is difficult to recognize that Gap and his children were mainly responsible for the failure if the failure was caused by the failure, without making any particular efforts for smooth marriage life with Gap.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act; Articles 183 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Appellant (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

appellees

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Reu206 delivered on December 20, 1988

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the ground of its reasoning, the court below decided that the reason for divorce of this case was that the respondent was unable to reach an agreement on February 25, 1980 on the premise that the respondent would have been unable to reach an agreement again on the premise that the respondent would not have reached an agreement again on the part of the defendant's family life on the premise that the respondent would not have reached an agreement on the part of the defendant's family life on February 25, 1980, and that the defendant would not have reached an agreement on the part of the defendant, and that the defendant would not have reached an agreement on the part of the defendant's family life on the premise that the defendant would not have reached an agreement on the part of the defendant's family life, or would not have reached an agreement on the part of the defendant's family life on the part of the defendant's family life, and that the defendant's act constitutes a serious reason for divorce, but the testimony and evidence of the witness's family life could not be acknowledged as being able to have reached an agreement on the part of the defendant's family life without any other reason for divorce.

However, there are many cases where the circumstances leading up to the failure of the original marital life are complicatedly complicated and the responsibility of one of the parties cannot be confirmed if the religious problem is unknown. If the grounds for divorce of this case and the respondent's assertion and the opposing facts acknowledged by the court below to reject the claimant's assertion, even though there are sufficient materials to recognize that the respondent abandons in bad faith between the claimant and the respondent, at least before the failure of the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent, the respondent did not understand and cooperate with the respondent's religious life with the defendant's understanding of and without the respondent's religious belief until the failure of the marital relationship between the claimant and the defendant, but it is possible to find the cause of the prejudice not only the rest of the church activities with the defendant's religious belief and witness, but also the respondent also made efforts to find a way to harmonize his/her religious life and family life with the claimant's religious belief and family life without any particular reason.

In addition, in light of such factual basis, it is difficult to recognize that the principal responsibility of the failure is the claimant with the testimony of a witness who made the respondent to study the doctrine on the comparison of women and witnesses, or with the result of the defendant's questioning and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 only, the defendant himself/herself, and the evidence No. 2.

Nevertheless, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for divorce under Articles 840 subparag. 2 and 6 of the Civil Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for divorce under Articles 840 subparag. 2 and 6 of the Civil Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)