Cases of misunderstanding the legal principles concerning serious causes for which marriage is difficult to continue;

The mere fact that both spouses agree to divorce and the other spouse received money by himself/herself cannot be a ground for judicial divorce, and the fact that the husband and the other spouse are the husband and the other spouse who are the other spouse have made a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the real estate owned by them cannot be deemed to constitute a serious reason that makes it difficult to continue divorce. Moreover, the fact that the other spouse had left his/her house and left his/her house for one year and six months cannot be deemed to constitute the above reason, barring any special circumstances, and the fact that the other

Article 840 (1) 6 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na225 delivered on September 20, 1962, 200

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

According to the original judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the court below acknowledged that the defendant spreads false facts about the plaintiff, and that the defendant agreed to divorce between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's original defendant's husband on the ground that the plaintiff continued to marrys from 80,000 won since the plaintiff did not pay the above 80,000 won, the defendant received a provisional disposition prohibiting disposal of the plaintiff's real estate, but the defendant cancelled this fact and received the above money from the plaintiff's plaintiff, and then the defendant did not interfere with the plaintiff's property without any interference with the plaintiff's property for 1 year and 6 months after March 1961, and the defendant did not know that the above facts constitute "a serious reason which makes it difficult to continue marriage" under Article 840 (1) 6 of the Civil Act, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's appeal constitutes "a serious reason which does not have any legitimate grounds for divorce," and even if the court below acknowledged that the defendant did not have any false facts with respect to the plaintiff's property, it cannot be seen that it constitutes a legitimate reason for divorce.

Therefore, this case is recognized to be necessary for the original court to judge again, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,