The defendant's continuous inter-lock and the failure of the marriage for about six years, during the claimant's unauthorized leave, shall be liable.

Although the appellant was unable to check his/her obligation and did not know the exact whereabouts for about six years and did not look at the respondent and his/her family for about six years, the respondent continued to send him/her with the relation that he/she received the respondent's address, and even if the daily goods sold had continued to work for a labor day, if the respondent continued to go through several times over about 19 months with the other male and female, the cause of the failure in marriage is deemed to be the act of the respondent.

Article 840 Subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, Article 840 Subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Appellant Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

appellees

Daegu High Court Decision 82Reu34 delivered on October 19, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is justified, on March 1981, it can be recognized that the respondent was in contact with the person other than the claimant. However, from the beginning of 1972 after the claimant was retired from office while he was on the part of the claimant, he was unable to perform his duty due to failure in his management in Daegu, which led to a lot of damages to his family members, and it is not possible for the claimant to have his family members known about the fact that he was in contact with other women for 6 years and did not know about the defendant's whereabouts, and that the respondent did not know about the defendant's whereabouts, and that the respondent would not have parents return to the defendant's whereabouts, and that the respondent and his family members were abandoned to the claimant's bad faith, and that the claimant's family members would not have been able to get the defendant to have his family members divorced, and that the defendant would not have been able to have his family members recovered from his prison life by 17 months after he was found to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been dismissed by 17 months or her family members.

2. In light of the record, the claimant went out to the same situation as the time of the original edition for about six years, without notifying the defendant and his family members of the exact whereabouts for about six years, and the defendant continued to send the same letter as the original edition, but the defendant continued to send the defendant and his family members, and the defendant was able to find the defendant's address like the original edition as the time of the original edition, while he was able to find the fact that he was tending to care for the household by making labor work such as the time of original edition

However, in accordance with the fact that the claimant had a non-contestial relationship with another woman, the testimony of the witness Lee Do-young and the result of the respondent's personal examination cannot be considered to have been aware of the rumor, and there is no evidence to conclude it otherwise. On the other hand, according to the statement of evidence No. 7-1 (criminal judgment against the respondent) of the court below and the testimony of Kim Ma-friendly, the respondent continued to be able to reach ten times for a long period from Sep. 8, 1979 to Mar. 8, 1981.

Therefore, the reason why the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent has been caused by the failure of the marriage is that the claimant has left for a long time, and the defendant has not been able to live together with the defendant and his family members, but the respondent has continued to be in inhumane relationship with the remaining South and North Korea for a long time.

3. Nevertheless, the original market price's rejection of the claimant's claim on the premise that the claimant is a liable spouse who has maliciously deserted the respondent. It cannot avoid criticism that it violated the rules of evidence and committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles on subparagraphs 2 and 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Code. In this regard, the judgment of the court below can not be maintained on the ground of this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)