(a) A case that does not fall under the case where the spouse has been extremely maltreated by the spouse;

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute a case where there is a serious reason making it difficult to continue the marriage;

A. The respondent's injury requiring medical treatment for 10 days was caused by the result of the result of the result of the result that the respondent's sexual function and economic condition's reproductive impossibility was shocked, and rather, the respondent declared a divorce on the ground of sexual function of the respondent and the dissatisfaction against his/her economic condition, and the respondent was unable to return to her friendship, but he/she returned to her home, but he/she failed to comply with the request due to a temporary and significant appraisal, such cause alone does not constitute a case where the respondent was extremely maltreated by the spouse under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act.

B. It is difficult to view that the fact that the respondent is unable to reproductive due to her infertility and is not somewhat smooth in sexual function constitutes a serious cause that makes it difficult to continue marriage under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.

A. Article 840(3)(b) of the Civil Act

Appellant-Appellant, Counsel for the appellant-appellant

Appellee respondent

Daegu High Court Decision 82Reu18 delivered on June 28, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal by the appellant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that among the judicial causes of divorce of this case, the respondent was aware of the fact that the respondent caused an injury requiring medical treatment for ten days from the claimant's friendship, but the defendant and the respondent did not have any other obligation to cooperate with the defendant to see that the defendant cannot be reproductively impossible as a result of the examination of the court below's 1980.6.30, the court below found that the defendant's non-smoking was not able to have any other reason for non-smoking because the defendant's non-smoking was not able to have any other reason for non-smoking, even though the defendant's non-smoking was not able to have any other reason for non-smoking, since the defendant's mental impulse drinking somewhat more than the end of this case's non-litigation and the nature of the defendant's non-smoking, and the court below's failure to cooperate with the defendant's 1 as a result of the examination of the court below's misunderstanding of evidence, even if it was not sufficiently able to see that the respondent's sexual function.

In addition, if the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, under the above circumstances, the defendant's temporary evaluation under the above circumstances and the reasons for the respondent's suffering from suffering from the plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the defendant suffered extremely unfair treatment from his spouse under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code. In addition, the fact that the defendant is unable to reproductive and the sexual function is not somewhat smooth, it shall not be deemed to constitute a serious reason that makes it difficult to continue the marriage under subparagraph 6 of the same Article in this case, unless there are other special circumstances. Under the premise that the court below's failure has occurred between the above parties, the reason for the failure is erroneous in the judgment of the claimant's decision, and on the premise that the above parties' failure has occurred, it shall not affect the conclusion of rejection of the claimant's claim, and it shall be deemed to be erroneous that the court below has determined that the cause of the failure is in

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 Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)