The scope of application of Article 842 of the Civil Code, which provides for the period for filing a lawsuit against a cause of judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code

Article 842 of the Civil Act, which provides for the period for filing a lawsuit as to Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, which is a judicial divorce, provides for the period for filing a lawsuit, shall be deemed to be a provision to limit where a divorce adjudication is filed on the ground of a serious cause which makes it difficult for either party to continue the marriage before or after the failure to continue the marriage due to the occurrence of a serious cause which makes it difficult to continue the marriage. However, in a case where a divorce adjudication is filed on the grounds of a serious cause which makes it difficult for one party to continue the marriage

Article 840 Subparag. 6, and Article 842 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Claimant

appellees

Seoul Family Court (Law No. 86d8739, 87d206) of the first instance court

(a) The original adjudication shall be modified as follows:

A. On the basis of the main trial and the anti-trial claim, the appellant and the respondent shall be divorced.

(b) The respondent shall pay 15,00,000 won to the appellant and the appellant shall pay 15,000,000 won to the respondent respectively.

(c) The remaining claims of the claimant and the remaining claims of the respondent are dismissed.

B. The costs of litigation shall be borne by both the first and second instances through the main trial and the second instance, and one by which they shall be borne by the appellant and the other by the respondent.

C. The above Paragraph 1(b) can be provisionally executed.

An appellant (only referred to as an appellant in the first instance and hereinafter referred to as an appellant) shall be divorced from the principal trial, and the appellant and the respondent (only referred to as an appellant in the second instance and the respondent) shall be divorced.

The respondent shall pay 150,000,000 won to the appellant (the defendant added the above claim for consolation money at the trial).

The adjudication costs shall be borne by the respondent and a sentence of provisional execution on the part of the monetary payment shall be sought, and the respondent and the respondent shall be divorced by a second instance.

The appellant shall pay 150,000,000 won to the appellee.

The cost of trial is claimed to be borne by the claimant.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

The claimant's claim for the main trial is dismissed.

The claimant and the respondent are divorced by a request for anti-trial.

The appellant shall pay 150,000,000 won to the appellee.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the claimant in both the first and second trials through the main and second trials.

1. 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(호적등본), 갑 제2호증의 1,2(각 주민등록등본), 원심법원 조사관 김영석 작서의 조사보고서의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 청구인은 1967년경 연세대학교 행정학과를 졸업하고 그 다음해 미국으로 건너가 템플대학에서 공부를 계속하여 박사학위를 취득한 후 1981년경 귀국하여 국민대학교에서 교수로 재직하다가 (대학교 이름 생략)대학교로 옮겨 동 대학 행정학과 교수로 재직하고 있고, 피청구인은 1971년경 (대학 이름 생략)여자대학교를 졸업하고, 그 다음해 미국으로 유학하여 미시간대학교에서 박사학위를 취득한 후 1983년경부터 텍사스 의과대학에서 조교수로 근무하던중 1983.3.경 일시 귀국하였을 때 청구외 1의 소개로 청구인을 알게 되어 서신 등을 통한 교제를 계속해 온 사실, 그러다가 청구인은 같은 해 8.경 여름방학을 이용하여 미국으로 건너가서 같은 해 8.18. 뉴욕주에서 피청구인과 혼인식을 올리고 1주일가량 피청구인의 주거지에서 함께 생활하다가 같은 달 말경 청구인 혼자 귀국하였고 피청구인은 같은 해 12.5.경 귀국하여 청구인이 재직중인 (대학교 이름 생략)대학교의 의과댁학 미생물학 조교수로 근무하게 된 사실, 청구인과 피청구인은 그 무렵부터 서울 성동구 성수동 소재 (상세 주소 생략)로 신혼생활을 시작하여 같은 해 12.20.혼인신고를 마치고 법률상의 부부가 된 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

2. We examine the claims for divorce at this Court and the second instance.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제3호증의 1(사실조회 회신), 2(민원이첩), 3(민원회신), 갑 제4호증(항곡기각 증명원), 갑 제5호증의 1(불기소처분 기록송부서), 3(사실과 이유), 5,6,7,9(각 피의자신문조서), 을 제1호증의 5(압수목록), 13,14,47(각 진술조서), 을 제2호증(주민등록변경신고서), 을 제4호증(검사표), 위 조사보고서의 각 기재와 원심증인 청구외 1, 청구외 2, 청구외 3, 당심증인 청구외 4, 청구외 5, 청구외 6, 청구외 7의 각 증언(다만 위 갑 제5호증의 5,6,7,9, 을 제1호증의 13,14,47 및 위 조사보고서의 각 기재내용과 위 증인들의 각 증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분은 각 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피청구인은 10년이 넘는 외국생활을 마치고 1983.12.5.경 귀국하여 청구인의 주거지인 (상세 주소 생략)에서 시어머니인 청구외 8을 모시고 청구인과의 신혼살림을 시작하게 된 사실, 청구외 8은 당시 67세로서 미국시민권을 가지고 미국에서 살고 있었는데 피청구인이 귀국하기전인 1983.9. 중순경 귀국하여 같은 해 10.14.경 이혼한 전남편과 함께 피청구인 부모를 인사차 만나게 되자 "나는 아들의 이번 결혼을 반대하였는데 아들이 서둘러서 결혼하였다" "내가 젊을 때는 시집살이를 말도 못하게 하였다"는 등의 말을 하여 처음 만난 피청구인 부모의 심기를 불편하게 하더니 피청구인이 귀국하여 함께 생활하게 되자 피청구인에게 "한국에서 박사에게 시집을 오려면 아파트1채와 지참금을 가지고 와야 하는데 혼수감도 가지고 오지 않아 서운하다"는 등의 말을 하여 피청구인의 마음을 심히 불편하게 하므로 피청구인도 이에 대항하여 청구외 8과는 말도 잘하지 않고 지냄으로써 사이가 매우 나빠진 사실, 한편 청구인은 청구인대로 신혼초부터 밤 12시, 1시에 귀가하고 일요일은 아침 일찍부터 혼자서 집을 나가는 등 하여 가정생활에 불성실하고, (명칭 생략)기업 사장이 자신을 사위로 삼으려 하였다는 이야기를 피청구인에게 수차 할 뿐아니라 피청구인과 자신의 어머니와의 사이의 위와 같은 갈등을 해소시킬 생각은 하지 않고 오히려 피청구인이 싸준 도시락 밥이 설었다는 등 사소한 일을 어머니에게 고자질하는 등 하여 피청구인의 입장을 난처하게 만들기도 한 사실, 피청구인은 1984.1.19.경 몸이 극히 쇠약해지고 또한 고열로 인하여 (대학교 이름 생략)대학병원 응급실에서 치료를 받게 되었으나 병실이 없어 입원을 못하게 되자 청구인과 상의도 없이 남서울호텔에 투숙하여 하룻밤을 지내고 다음날 아침 자신의 친정집으로 돌아가 요양을 하게 된 사실, 며칠후인 같은 달 25.경 청구인의 매형이 피청구인에게 찾아와 청구외 8의 성격이 매우 괴팍하여 힘들겠다면서 자신이 청구외 8을 미국으로 모셔 가겠으니 귀가하라고 권유하여 피청구인은 이를 따라 귀가하여 청구인 및 청구외 8과 함께 생활하게 된 사실, 그러나 피청구인과 청구인 및 청구외 8과의 불편한 관계가 계속되었고 청구인과 피청구인의 결혼을 중매하였던 청구외 1 교수가 이러한 사실을 알게 되자 동인은 1984.2.중순경 청구인 및 피청구인, 피청구인 친정언니 내외까지 함께 하는 자리를 마련하여 청구인과 피청구인의 앞으로의 문제를 의논한 결과 당분간 냉각기를 갖기 위하여 별거를 하는 것이 좋겠다는 의견이 나오고 청구인과 피청구인이 모두 이에 동의함으로써 별거의 합의가 이루어져 이에 따라 피청구인이 같은 달 18. 친정으로 돌아가 청구인과의 별거생활이 시작된 사실, 청구인과 피청구인은 위와 같이 별거를 시작한 이후로 어느 한쪽도 상대방을 만나 진지한 대화를 나누고 재결합을 도모해 보려는 노력을 하지 아니한 채 시간만을 흘려 보내다가 청구인이 피청구인에게 주민등록을 퇴거해 갈 것을 수차례 요구하자 피청구인도 이에 응하여 피청구인은 1985.4.23 자신의 주민등록을 친정집 주소로 옮겨 놓았고 청구인은 1985.11.경 서울 도봉구 공릉동 소재 (상세 소재지 생략)로 주거를 옮긴 사실, 청구인과 피청구인은 그후로도 계속 서로 연락도 하지 않고 남남처럼 지내오다가 피청구인의 아버지가 1986.6.28. 사망하여 장례식을 치르게 되었을 때에도 청구인은 참석하지 아니하였고 며칠 후 학교에서 피청구인을 만난 청구인은 피청구인에게 "이젠 무서운 너의 아버지가 죽었으니 정말 이혼하자"고 하면서 이혼을 요구하기도 한 사실, 그런던중 1986.11.3.경 청구인이 복잡한 여자관계를 가지고 있다는 소문을 들은 피청구인이 청구인을 학교 연구실로 찾아가 그 소문의 진위를 추궁하였던바, 청구인이 이를 부인하므로 피청구인은 청구인을 따라 다시 청구인이 홀로 거주하고 있던 (상세 소재지 생략)로 찾아가 집안을 뒤지다가 같은 아파트 같은 동 406호에 사는 청구외 9의 아파트열쇠와 청구외 10으로부터 청구인에게 온 발렌타인 편지 등을 발

On the other hand, at the same date, the respondent had expressed his intention to continue residing in the above apartment complex, and the above apartment complex was abandoned on the next day, and the respondent was living in front of 906, and the non-party 10 talks that the non-party 4 and the non-party 9 would soon be married from the non-party 2 and would be the same as that of the appellant and the non-party 2. On the 12th of the same month, the defendant received a written statement from the non-party 2 to the non-party 9 that the non-party 4 and the non-party 9 would not have any relation between the respondent and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the defendant would not have any relation to the non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 9 were the non-party 2's non-party 2's name.

The respondent is dissatisfied with the order of re-investigation by the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office on September 8 of the same year. However, as of the end of the re-investigation for about eight months thereafter, the public prosecutor in charge seems to have been in a relationship between the appellant and the non-appellant 9 and the non-appellant 10 on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to recognize that the respondent again made an appeal and reappeal again, but the reappeal was dismissed at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the ground that the defendant again made an appeal and reappeal again, and the above reappeal were dismissed at the same time, and the defendant and the respondent are not in a position of the other party and defending him by thoroughly attacking the investigation agency during the process of the investigation for about one year, and the mother of the above non-appellant and the non-appellant were not in a relationship between the defendant and the non-appellant 1 and the non-appellant 4, and the defendant's non-appellant 1 and the non-appellant 2, as well as the witness of the above apartment and the defendant's non-appellant 187 on the same day.7.

According to the above facts, the marriage between the claimant and the respondent has reached a thorough increase of the other party through the investigation process conducted by the investigative agency over a long period of time and one year. Such failure failure cause is deemed to have reached an extent that it is impossible to see that the other party has reached an agreement. The above failure cause is without any effort to combine with each other after the separation of agreement, and a considerable period of time is complicated, and the appellant's relationship is complicated. The respondent investigates the appellant's relation under the intention to attract the appellant to the society, without any clear evidence, and then made a petition with the door delivery and the Social Cleanup Committee without any clear evidence, thereby bringing the appellant's reputation as university professor, and eventually caused the respondent's failure to reach an agreement on the grounds that there was no clear evidence as a result of the investigation, and thus, the mother of the defendant cannot be deemed to have reached an agreement between the respondent and the respondent, and thus, the mother of the above case should be held liable as one of the parties to a divorce, and at the same time, the mother of the above case should not be misunderstanding.

Thus, in this case where both parties seek a divorce on the premise that there is a cause attributable only to the other party, the marriage between the claimant and the respondent has already been broken down to the extent that it is difficult to continue the marriage, and this constitutes a cause for judicial divorce as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code. Therefore, each claim for divorce between the principal trial of the claimant and the respondent for each divorce on the ground of this cause shall be justified.

The appellant may not claim divorce with the reason that "if there is any other serious reason which makes it difficult to continue marriage" as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, six months after the date on which such reason occurred, and two years have passed after the date on which such reason occurred. The respondent, by itself, has sought the above reason as above, around November 3, 1986 (the date on which the respondent knew about the claimant's apartment relationship with 9's apartment house and the other 10's siren's apartment complex, etc. were found). Thus, the respondent cannot claim divorce trial for the above reason that it is difficult for the above reason to continue to exist after the lapse of 19 years from the date on which the above reason was added to the cause of divorce, and it is difficult for the respondent to continue to claim divorce for the reason that it is difficult for the above reason to continue to exist after the lapse of 19 years from the date on which the plaintiff had no significant reason to claim divorce, as stated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.

3. As to the claim of consolation money by the first instance and the second instance

As seen earlier, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the marriage between the claimant and the respondent caused the failure of both parties due to the fault of both parties, and that both parties suffered a severe mental suffering, the respondent also has the obligation to pay the respondent the above mental suffering in cash. Thus, considering the age, academic background, occupation, property level, status status, marital life period, circumstances surrounding the marital life occurred, and all other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the claimant by the respondent as KRW 15,00,000,000, the amount of consolation money to be paid to the respondent by the claimant is also 15,00,000,000.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claimant shall accept each claim for divorce and each claim for consolation money of KRW 15,00,00 of the above recognition within the scope of seeking the payment of 15,00,000 of each claim for divorce and each claim for consolation money of the respondent. Each claim for consolation money shall be dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is partially unfair, it is decided to modify it, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 29 of the Family Trial Act as to the burden of litigation costs, and Article 29 of the Civil Execution Act as to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judge Final (Presiding Judge)