1. In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the plaintiff and the defendant suffered economic difficulties by the plaintiff due to frequent unemployment of the defendant after the marriage on July 9, 1987, such as the delivery of milk and the maintenance of livelihood due to cosmetics, etc., and the defendant's marital relationship with the defendant was caused by the wind that she was drinking or drinking out, and the defendant got off his card gambling from around 1999 to the date of arranging the place of gambling. The defendant was in close to the non-party who lent his gambling money, and there was a large amount of 0 years after being accompanied by the plaintiff's house and the non-party's 2nd time before the plaintiff's house, and the non-party was allowed to have a large amount of 0 years of marriage with the plaintiff and the defendant's 2nd time of marriage, and it was difficult for the plaintiff to have a large amount of 0 years of marriage with the plaintiff and the defendant's 2nd time of 20 years of marriage.

Then, the lower court determined that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is likely to be smoothly recovered, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is likely to be smoothly recovered due to frequent economic difficulties due to the defendant's non-responsibility, large-sum monetary burden, education problems of children, etc., and frequent marital fighting and the defendant's tangible power, the defendant's exercise of physical force, the existence of circumstances leading to doubting the defendant's misconduct, and the circumstances leading to doubting the defendant's misconduct. However, even though the defendant's mistake is recognized, the court dismissed all of the claims for divorce, the person with parental authority, and the request for designation of the person with parental authority, inasmuch as the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is likely to be smoothly recovered.

2. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The term “if there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage”, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, means the case where a marital relation corresponding to the essence of the marriage which should be based on difficulties and trust between the husband and wife, has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover and compelling the continuation of the marital life, which would result in an irreparable pain for one spouse. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue the marriage, the existence of a party’s liability as to the cause of the failure, the period of marital life, the party’s age, the party’s age, the guarantee of livelihood after the divorce, and all other circumstances of the marital relationship should be taken into consideration. If it is deemed that the marital relationship between the husband and the wife has been broken to the extent that it is impossible to take account of such circumstances, the plaintiff’s liability for the cause of the failure should be accepted unless the plaintiff’s liability is deemed to be greater than the defendant’s liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu1067, Jul. 9, 27, 1994Meu.).

In light of the records, the plaintiff suffered a large number of pains due to the defendant's lack of economic ability and responsibility from the early stage of marriage, but the defendant has been suffering from a large amount of debts due to gambling and speculative economic activities since around 1999, and in the process, the plaintiff was created as a bad credit holder, and thus, the suffering has increased. Furthermore, the defendant's reliance and dissatisfaction with the defendant has been consistently accumulated for a long time by making it difficult to recover the relation between the defendant's reliance and the defendant's reliance as well as reliance on the defendant's reliance on this issue, as the defendant's reliance and attitude did not change completely to the defendant's reliance on this issue, and the defendant's reliance and reliance on the defendant's reliance on his reliance on his her reliance as well as reliance on the defendant's reliance on this case's reliance and reliance on the defendant's reliance in the process.

In light of the above circumstances, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant should be based on the reason that it is no longer able to recover, and it is sufficient to deem that compelling the continuation of the marital life to the extent that it would not cause any pain to the plaintiff. Furthermore, since the plaintiff's responsibility for the cause of the failure is no longer larger than the defendant's responsibility, the plaintiff's claim for divorce should have been accepted.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected all of the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that the failure of the marital relation is not recognized, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by either misapprehending the legal principles as to grounds for divorce or the dissolution of a marriage under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, or by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or incomplete trial. The appeal pointing

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)