Whether it is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage to leave the church in every week Sundays o, with the belief of the religion called a woman and witness, and to participate in the religious ceremony in accordance with the doctrine of the doctrine.

If the doctrine of religion, which is a woman and a witness, is not an illegal act which is not legally acceptable or denies the concept of marriage and family, it cannot be deemed that the act of expressing a religious belief on the above religion has reached a situation that is not compatible with the family life. However, if the act of outside the religious deliberation is so excessive that it would not be possible to continue the marriage and family life, it shall not be deemed that the act of outside the religious deliberation constitutes a serious cause that makes it difficult to continue the marriage, while going to the church on the Sundays of every week and going to the religious life to the church on the Sundays of every week and going to the religious life to the degree that he did not participate in the religious ceremony according to that doctrine.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

Daejeon District Court (89d1635 Judgment) of the first instance court

1. The original adjudication shall be revoked;

2. The claimant's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the claimant in the first and second instances.

The appellant and the appellee shall be divorced.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

The same shall apply to the order.

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 1 (the family register) without dispute in the formation, the claimant and the respondent may recognize the fact that they have two women under the slurries, who reported marriage on October 27, 1984.

As the cause of the claim in this case, the respondent, after being married with the claimant in the spring of 1986, did not refuse the above religion, and the respondent recommended the defendant to leave the above religion to the above church because he did not leave the above church, but the respondent does not go to the above church even if he did not go to the above church, and the respondent did not go to the end of the claimant who was the husband, and the defendant did not go to the above church, and the defendant did not go to the end of the above church from the time when the defendant went to the above church and went to the above church, and he did not return to the police officer in the middle of March 1988, when the respondent did not leave the house without any reason until now, and this constitutes a serious reason that it is difficult for the respondent to continue the marriage, and the respondent asserts that it constitutes a case where the respondent has maliciously deserted the claimant, or there is a serious reason that makes it difficult to continue the marriage.

Therefore, at the time of birth of the mother of the above-mentioned defendant, Gap's 1 and 2, Gap's testimony (excluding the part which is not believed in the above-mentioned evidence 3), defendant's witness, Kim Jong-young's testimony (excluding the part which is not believed in the witness of the above-mentioned defendant's testimony) and Lee Jong-young's testimony, which are not against the above-mentioned defendant's 1 and 1984. Since the defendant did not know about the defendant's religious affairs because he did not know about the defendant's religious affairs because 1 and 3, his mother did not know about the defendant's religious affairs, and his mother did not know about the defendant's religious affairs since 1 and 8, the defendant's religious affairs cannot be confirmed to be the defendant's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party.

According to the above facts, the marital life between the claimant and the respondent is a matter of concern only when the plaintiff and the mother of the claimant unilaterally waives their religious life with respect to the conduct of the religious life of the defendant, which is a female witness, and the defendant did not follow it, and thus the defendant was forced to leave the defendant at home. Thus, the defendant cannot have deserted the defendant in bad faith, and there is no evidence to view that the doctrine of the religion, which is a female witness, is illegal or illegal, which is not legally acceptable, or that it is denied the concept of marriage and family, it cannot be deemed that the act of the religious deliberation alone is in an objective situation that is not compatible with the family life. However, as acknowledged above, it is an issue only when the act of the outside of the religious deliberation is conducted so much to the extent that it is impossible to continue the marriage and family life, and even if it is difficult for the defendant to take part in the religious life, it is difficult for the defendant to continue the religious life of the claimant and the defendant to take part in the religious doctrine of the above religion.

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed by the claimant on the premise that the respondent has deserted the claimant in bad faith or that the marriage of the claimant and the respondent has reached a failure which is difficult to continue due to any cause attributable to the respondent shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the original judgment is unfair as it is unfair in conclusion, the original judgment is revoked and the claim of the claimant is dismissed. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing claimant, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges final (Presiding Judge) Kim Jin-sicker