The case holding that a claim for divorce by a father, which is the responsible spouse, shall be allowed in case where a conviction of a crime of adultery is finalized according to the simple notice by the wife who committed an unlawful act.

In a case where the respondent is living together with another woman and his/her mother, and the appellant has maintained only the formal marital relationship with the appellee, has filed a request for adjudication of divorce or consolation money, and the appellee has been detained, and the appellee has been sentenced to a suspended sentence for one year in the first instance. In a case where the appellate court sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year in the six-month period, the divorce relationship between the appellant and the appellee has become final and conclusive by a judgment of the suspended sentence of one year in the first instance. The divorce relationship between the appellant and the appellee has been finally failed by the name of the appellee subject to criminal punishment due to the respondent's unlawful act, the appellant's request for divorce or his/her request for judgment of divorce or his/her notification. Thus, the liability for failure is clear as the respondent's unlawful act. However, in light of the purport of the system that requires the appeal or prosecution against the appellee for the liquidation of a marital relationship, as long as the judgment of conviction against the appellee has become final and conclusive by changing the attitude between the appellant and his/her spouse to maintain the marital relationship with the appellee, even if the claimant has not consented to the previous claim for divorce.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Appellant (Appellee) and appellees, Appellants

A respondent (Appellant) and appellant.

Daegu District Court (88D20790, 1891, 1891) in the first instance trial

1. The part of the judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked;

2. Once an appeal is filed, the appellee and the appellant shall be divorced.

3. The costs of the anti-trial shall be borne by the claimant in both the first and second instances.

As a result of this adjudication, the claimant (respondent, hereinafter referred to as the "respondent") and the respondent (responator, hereinafter referred to as the "responator") have sought the adjudication of divorce, and the respondent and the respondent have sought the adjudication of divorce.

The part of the original adjudication against the respondent in relation to the anti-trial shall be revoked.

The respondent and the claimant shall be divorced. (No one is dissatisfied with this adjudication)

The defendant's 1,2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 12, 13 and Eul evidence 6-1 to 8, Eul evidence 9-5, Eul evidence 9-6, and defendant's 9-1 and defendant's 9-1 to 9-7. The defendant's 19-7 defendant's 9-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 9-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 9-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 9-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 19-1 defendant's 9-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 19-7 defendant's 17-party defendant's 17-party defendant's 17-party 1958 defendant's 1-party 1

According to the above facts of recognition, the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent has been resolved by the name of the respondent subject to criminal punishment due to the defendant's unlawful act, the claimant's filing of a request for divorce and a suit of notification. Thus, the main liability of the failure is not the defendant's unlawful act. However, in light of the system's purport that the liquidation of the marital relationship is the requirement of appeal or prosecution against the crime of adultery, so long as the judgment of conviction against the defendant is affirmed upon the claimant's complaint as in this case, the continuation of the previous marital relationship which has already been extinguished shall not be forced to the defendant (if the respondent has an intention to continue the previous marital relationship, it is a separate problem).

In the end, in such a case, it is reasonable to allow the divorce claim of the spouse responsible for the failure of the marriage even though it is the case of the divorce claim by the spouse who is responsible for the failure of the marriage even though it falls under the case of "if there is any other serious reason that makes it difficult to continue the marriage."

Therefore, the respondent's appeal of this case against the plaintiff seeking a divorce with the plaintiff is justified, and it is unfair that the plaintiff's appeal against this case has a different conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff is revoked, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff is accepted, and the costs of the appeal against the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost all the first and second trials.

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)