(b) limitations on the burden of proof promotion;

B. The presiding judge of the fact-finding court does not necessarily require the parties to prove all the facts in dispute, but does not necessarily require the parties to prove, in light of the degree of litigation, only when the parties have a duty to urge the parties to prove only when it is evident that the parties do not prove due to negligence or misunderstanding, and where the parties submit the materials to prove themselves, it cannot be said that the failure to urge the parties to prove

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

1. The court's right to request the statement of the party is not exercised to make the statement clear or to urge the party who has the burden of proof by supplementing it when it is impossible to know the purport of the statement due to any inconsistency or defect or omission of the party's statement, or by suggesting the means of offence and defense which are not asserted by the party concerned, and the same act cannot be deemed to violate the principle of pleading. Thus, the fact-finding court does not necessarily require the party's proof in all cases where there is a dispute and there is no proof, and it is only a duty to urge the party to prove only when it is evident that the party's failure to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding in light of the degree of the lawsuit, and if the party submits the materials to prove his own opinion, it cannot be said that it is unlawful even if the party does not demand any further verification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu677, Nov. 25, 1986; 80Nu547, Sept. 14, 1981).

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's testimony of the witness of the court of first instance, which corresponds to the facts of the claimant's argument, constitutes "where there is a serious reason making it difficult to continue marriage" under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act due to frequent unauthorized leave of the defendant, waste of the defendant's parents, and dissipation of the defendant's occupation, etc., the defendant's life of marriage with the claimant and the defendant shall be abandoned to the defendant in bad faith, such as giving money to the defendant, and the defendant shall be extremely unfair treatment to the defendant. Thus, the court below's request for divorce of this case shall be justified in light of the records, and the fact-finding and selection of the court below are all justified, and there is no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the allegation that the defendant's testimony constitutes "where there is any other serious reason making it difficult to continue marriage," and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's assertion is groundless or there is no evidence to urge all of evidence.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)