A. Whether the denial at the stage of matrimonial engagement constitutes grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act (negative)

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to conclude that the report of birth of a pregnant woman with another male during the period of matrimonial engagement is a serious reason for not being able to continue the marriage in light of the progress of marital life, etc., as the husband was born after the marriage;

A. The case where there was an illegal act to a spouse who is a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act refers to the case where one of the married couple has committed an unlawful act. Thus, in case where one of the married couple has committed an unlawful act at the stage of matrimonial engagement before marriage, it shall not be deemed that the above subparagraph

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to conclude that the report of birth is a serious reason for making it impossible to continue the marriage in light of the progress of the marital life, etc. of the husband who is pregnant with another male during the period of matrimonial engagement and is the father of the husband after the marriage;

A. Article 840 subparagraph 1 B of the Civil Act; Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act

Appellant Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the appellant-appellant

Appellee Appellee Appellant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 90Reu132,149 delivered on January 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. We examine the judgment of the court below by comparing the records, and do not seem to have any errors such as violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding. The argument on this issue is nothing more than criticism for the selection of evidence and the fact-finding, which are

2. The term "in case where there was an illegal act to a spouse who is a cause of judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act" means when one of the married couple has committed an unlawful act. Thus, in case where one of the married couple has committed an unlawful act at the stage of matrimonial engagement prior to marriage, it shall not be deemed that

In the same purport, it is proper that the court below recognized that the defendant (only the appellant for the second instance, hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had a matrimonial relationship on April 1985 with the petitioner (only the appellant for the second instance, hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and had a de facto marital relationship on September 1985 among the teaching subjects (the appellant asserted that the defendant was in a de facto marital relationship at that time, but according to the facts recognized by the court below, the appellant and the respondent did not have a sporadic marital relationship after the conclusion of matrimonial relationship, but they did not have a de facto marital relationship until May 27, 1986, and did not have a de facto marital relationship until the beginning of living together) had been pregnant with other male and female, but it does not constitute a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act. However, it cannot be said that there

In addition, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant had a pregnant woman, living together with a pregnant woman, and had the married woman born after marriage as the father of the claimant, but the marriage of the claimant and the married woman caused the failure due to violence and other unfair treatment against the respondent. In particular, as can be known even by the claimant's own assertion and statement shown in the record, the claimant who is a one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-year-one-one-one-year-one-one-one-one-year-year-one-one-one-one-year-one-one-one marriage and mainly coming into Korea, it is difficult for the court below to find that the above marital relationship could not continue because it was a serious reason that the pregnant woman prior to the marriage could not continue the marriage of this case. In other facts recognized by the court below, it cannot be viewed as a reason for judicial divorce under Article 840 of the Civil Act since the respondent's arbitrary consumption of real estate deposit and rent, etc.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the fact of the marriage before the divorce does not fall under the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, and further, it is clear that the whole of the facts which the court below may recognize among the grounds for divorce claimed by the claimant, including these facts, cannot be deemed to fall under the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code. Thus, there is no omission of judgment as to

We cannot accept the decision of the court below as an attacking the court below on the basis of the facts that the court below rejected the legal principles on the grounds for judicial divorce, the incomplete hearing, or the lack of reasoning.

3. In light of all the circumstances revealed in the record, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of consolation money to be paid to the respondent by the claimant, and there is no error in law. This issue is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won