[1] The meaning of "where there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code"

[2] The case holding that there is room to view that there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue marriage

[1] "When there is a serious reason why it is difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code" refers to the case where the marital relationship corresponding to the nature of the marriage that should be based on the difficulty and trust between the married couple has reached a failure to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and compelling the continuation of the marital life to the extent that it becomes impossible for one spouse to join.

[2] The case holding that if the wife's refusal of sexual intercourse with the husband without a clear reasonable reason, and telephone conversations with the husband almost every day during the marriage life, the husband brought a divorce lawsuit and the husband brought a separate divorce lawsuit, the marital relationship between the husband and the couple's communal living has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and it is reasonable to view that compelling the husband to continue the marital life to the extent that it could not have any pain on the husband

[1] Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu24 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1393), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1067 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2158), Supreme Court Decision 97Meu612 delivered on February 12, 199 (Gong1999, 661), Supreme Court Decision 99Meu180 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong200Sang, 49), Supreme Court Decision 9Meu186 delivered on September 5, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2101)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2001Reu128 delivered on December 21, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

1. The court below rejected the plaintiff's appeal by citing the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim for a judicial divorce on the ground that the defendant's refusal of the defendant's sexual relation and continuous and frequent telephone conversations with the non-party on the ground that the marriage relationship has broken down due to the non-party's continuous and frequent telephone conversations between May 28, 200 and July 28, 200, and that the defendant's refusal of sexual intercourse with a specific telephone number is recognized, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has broken down, or that there is no further responsibility for the defendant.

2. "When there is a serious reason why it is difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act" means the case where a marital relationship corresponding to the essence of marriage, which should be based on difficulties and trust between the couple, has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover and compelling the continuation of the marital life, becomes an unreceptable pain for one spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 97Meu612 delivered on February 12, 199).

However, according to the records, the defendant refused to sexual intercourse with the plaintiff from the date of marriage to the date of marriage without a clear reasonable reason, the defendant's marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, not only on the day of marriage, but also on the day of marriage travel, and also on the day of continuous operation of the plaintiff's marital life with the plaintiff, and the telephone conversations with the non-regular male and the defendant every time. The telephone call time is at night, and the plaintiff and the defendant suffered conflict due to the defendant's refusal of sexual behavior, etc., and they can see the fact that the plaintiff raised a divorce lawsuit and brought a separate living. Thus, according to the specific circumstance or circumstances, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, which should be based on the plaintiff's ties and trust, has failed to the extent that it is impossible to recover the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and forced to continue their marital life, may not cause any pain to the plaintiff.

If so, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant's refusal of a sexual act, who is the party who made a telephone conversation, the reason why the defendant made a large number of calls without a long period, the possibility of improvement, etc., should be examined further by ordering the defendant to make an explanation. After such further deliberation, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for judicial divorce or failing to complete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though there is no evidence to support the existence of the cause for the failure, and whether there is a possibility that the plaintiff and the defendant may lead to a smooth marital life again.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)