(a) Where a request for retrial is pending after a long-term sentence has become final, whether it falls under any cause for judicial divorce;

(b) Whether an application for divorce filed against a person who is in prison for a long term after two years from the date on which the punishment becomes final and conclusive is illegal as falling under Article 842 of the Civil Act;

A. 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the respondent and 15 years of suspension of qualifications are finalized. Although the request for a retrial has not yet been concluded, barring any special circumstance that it would be accepted, if the respondent, who had had had the claimant take care of the child without her husband for more than 5 years, released the respondent from the court for more than 9 years and could live together with the claimant, this constitutes "when there is a serious reason that it is difficult to continue marriage," which is a judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

B. The appellant may recognize the fact that he filed a claim for divorce more than two years after the date on which the sentence against the respondent became final and conclusive, but the respondent has been sentenced to a long-term punishment and has a serious reason to make it difficult for the claimant to continue the marriage at present between the claimant and the respondent, and the divorce shall not be claimed more than two years after the date on which the above reason occurred.

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

A

B

Seoul Family Court (86D2764 Judgment) of the first instance court

The appeal by the respondent shall be dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the appellee.

The appellant and the appellee shall be divorced.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

The claimant is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the claimant in the first and second instances.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1) and 3-1 through 3 (each judgment), without dispute over each establishment, gather the testimony of witness C of the lower court, the fact-finding inquiry results and the whole purport of pleadings to the chief prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office at the lower court. The defendant gave birth to 2 South and North Korean women on April 30, 1964. However, the defendant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with prison labor and suspension of qualifications for acts espionage at the Seoul Criminal District Court at December 15, 1981, and the defendant was appealed for 15 years and 15 years of suspension of qualifications and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the defendant (the defendant of this case) on April 20, 1982, and the respondent had been sentenced to the same punishment at the Seoul High Court on July 27, 196, which became final and conclusive after the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court at issue, and the defendant's appeal against the above defendant's remaining ground for retrial is still accepted in Gwangju prison, and has not yet been finalized.

The respondent asserts that the claim of this case by the claimant was unlawful since it was filed two years after the date on which the above punishment against the respondent became final and conclusive, and therefore, according to Article 842 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, the defendant cannot claim a divorce after the lapse of two years from the date on which the above punishment against the respondent became final and conclusive. According to each of the above evidence, the defendant can recognize the fact that the claimant filed the claim of this case after the lapse of two years from the date on which the above punishment against the respondent became final and conclusive. However, the respondent has a serious reason which makes it difficult for the defendant to continue marriage at present between the claimant and the respondent, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have filed the claim of this case after the lapse of two years from the date on which the above ground occurred. Thus, the above argument is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case is just and justified, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sang-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)