A. Whether it constitutes abandonment in bad faith for non-payment of living expenses by leaving the additional time due to the deepening home inequality;

B. Whether the use of assault and insulting speech on several occasions among family inequality constitutes a case where the spouse is extremely treated unfairly

A. Bad faith abandonment refers to the abandonment of a spouse without any justifiable reason and the abolition of a married couple’s community life. As the result, it is only that the wife and children are the most influence of the cooling prices of the wife and children due to the deepening of home influence, and the purport of abandonment is separate from temporary house, and the household influence has not been paid for the very aggravated period of time, and otherwise, it does not constitute a bad faith abandonment under Article 840 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, unless it was withdrawn to abolish the married life.

B. The term “if one spouse is extremely maltreated” refers to the case where compelling the continuance of a matrimonial relationship is subject to violence, abuse, or insult to such an extent that it might be regarded as harsh by reference to force the continuation of the matrimonial relationship, and if it is a relatively insignificant expression of assault and insult on several occasions among family inequalitys, it does not constitute a case where one has been extremely maltreated by the other spouse under Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act.

Article 840 of the Civil Act

Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 84Reu162 delivered on December 24, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal by the claimant's agent are examined.

(1) In full view of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the rules of evidence against the rules of the lawsuit in the judgment below.

(2) 악의의 유기라 함은 정당한 이유없이 배우자를 버리고 부부공동생활을 폐지하는 것인바, 피청구인이 이민문제로 인하여 야기된 가정불화가 심화되고 그로 인하여 청구인 및 그 자녀들의 냉대가 극심하여지자 가장으로서 이를 피하여 자제케 하고 그 뜻을 꺽기 위하여 일시 집을 나와 별거하고, 가정불화가 심히 악화된 기간이래 생활비를 지급하지 아니한 것 뿐이고 달리 부부생활을 폐지하기 위하여 가출한 것이 아니라면 이는 민법 제840조 제2호 소정의 악의의 유기에 해당할 수 없다 할 것이니, 논지는 이유없다.

(3) When the respondent was able to take a photo in the bus with a fluence during the tour, and was locked and accompanied with each other at each other's accommodation after a daily tour, and around 70 days thereafter, it was doubtful from the claimant that there was no contact with each other for about 70 days, and it was sent to Daejeon at the same time as the respondent's apartment, which shows the respondent's written request for divorce, whose name and name were written, and it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code.

(4) The term “when one’s spouse is extremely maltreated” refers to a case where force the continuance of a matrimonial relationship is subject to violence, abuse, or insult to such an extent that it might be considered harsh by force. If the assault, insultd speech, or insultd several times as in the instant case, and if the assault was relatively minor, it does not constitute a case where one received extremely unfair treatment under Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act. The argument is groundless.

(5) Regarding the issue of immigration, the claimant and his/her children and the respondent are extremely against whom they stand in office for a considerable period since they got out of office because they are unable to withdle any longer, and the claimant has filed a criminal complaint against the respondent due to the suspicion of adultery or violence, etc., and the respondent is extremely worse and the respondent is crypted with appraisal by filing a petition against the police for the appellant, etc., but if the respondent has not been able to return home life for more than 20 years, considering the marriage period, age, and child relationship, etc. which have been continuously continued for more than 20 years, if the respondent has yet to return to home life, such reason alone does not constitute grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, even if it is deemed that there is no reason for divorce.

In addition, in light of the facts admitted by the court below, it is also justifiable in the judgment below that the failure of the marital life of this case was caused by the so-called of the claimant, and the claimant is responsible for the failure.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)