Cases where it becomes impossible to maintain family peace due to the fraternity and so-called under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code;

“Important reasons for which it is difficult to continue marriage”

The case holding that as a family head office, it is a serious cause for which it is difficult to continue marriage because it threatens the family economy and the peace of the family is broken with the family's family affairs, such as family affairs, and is related to the fraternity.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

Daejeon District Court Decision 65Reu15 decided August 19, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellee.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the respondent's attorney is that the respondent suffered losses in the fraternity and his guidance and is subject to criminal punishment, which is not the plaintiff's principal, is a series of facts. The defendant's living expenses have become difficult due to the increase in the cost of living by the third South and North children born between the claimant and the defendant, and thus, the defendant's stuffs of the claimant's frighten, which led to the relation to the fraternity, and the cause is rather a serious cause that makes it difficult for the court below to continue marriage, despite the plaintiff's insolvency and inorganic power, is an error of law interpretation.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the respondent, as the wife of the claimant, must concentrate on raising the child born between him and disposing of domestic affairs, has to organize 20,000 won in 1957 in her husband's name and lent 30,000 won to another person by taking account of the claimant's name, but the borrower is unable to repay the time limit as her escape, and the respondent is forced to pay the same time as the obligee's gender, and the respondent is forced to pay 30,000 won for the same time as her husband's debt, and the respondent has to pay 1,000 won to the defendant for the same time as her husband's debt and 36,000 won, and the respondent has been forced to pay her money again under the same condition as her husband's debt and to pay 1,000 won to the other person's family which had been delivered with the leave of execution for 16 months after her death without any light.

Under the above series of circumstances, the peace in the family, such as the defendant's location and duties as a family head office, family affairs, etc., and the defendant's re-concept of the claimant's own family, and the defendant's re-concept of the family economy, is subject to criminal punishment as well as serious threat to the creditor's family economy. At the same time, the peace in the family is created by the creditor's demand for the same gender with the Claimant's response to the Claimant's response to the Claimant's liability, and it is not necessary for the Claimant to take a reason to bring back the Claimant's responsibility back to the Claimant's insolvency or life, and it is difficult to continue the marriage as referred to in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. The court below's opinion that the Claimant's claim for divorce was justified and there is no ground to criticize the plaintiff's opinion that it is legitimate that it is against the Claimant's opinion.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court