Whether it conflicts with the judgment of the court below which accepted the respondent's claim for divorce after the judgment of the remanding the case that the claimant's claim for divorce should be accepted since the party's responsibility of marriage is both parties to the spouse (negative)

If the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible for the claimant to take full responsibility or the main responsibility, the claim for divorce should be permitted unless the cause of the divorce is the case for which the claimant should take full responsibility. Thus, in the case of a divorce claim which is remanded to the purport that the claimant cannot be deemed to have the main responsibility of the claimant, and that the claimant's claim for divorce should be accepted since the claimant's claim for divorce is not responsible to both parties, the court of original judgment after the remand accepted the claim for divorce by the respondent's anti-court on the ground that the claimant is also liable for the dissolution of marriage

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act; Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Shin Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 88Reu154, 701 (In the first instance) decided June 12, 1989

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

Each of the grounds of appeal by the attorney of the appellant (only referring to the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and the attorney of the respondent (only referring to the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the respondent) shall be examined together.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the marital relationship in this case resulted in the failure of bankruptcy due to the same degree of responsibility between the claimant and the respondent is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding of legal principles as to other important reasons for which a judicial divorce cannot continue, as alleged by the claimant's representative, as otherwise alleged by the claimant's representative.

In addition, the purport of the judgment of remanding the case is that if the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible for the claimant to take the responsibility entirely or mainly, the claimant's claim for divorce should be permitted unless the cause for the divorce has occurred. In the case of this case, the claimant cannot be deemed to have the main responsibility for the marriage dissolution, and the claimant shall be deemed to have the responsibility for both parties, and therefore, the claimant's claim for divorce should be accepted. Therefore, the court below cannot be deemed to have violated the above judgment of remanding the case by citing the respondent's claim for divorce, etc. by the counter-trial of the respondent at the court below after remanding the case for the reason that the claimant has the responsibility for the marriage dissolution.

In addition, according to the records, it is evident that the respondent asserted several facts that existed between the claimant and the non-claimer as mentioned above as one of the causes of marriage dissolution, which are causes of divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code. As seen earlier, inasmuch as the court below deliberated the facts as to the circumstances of the marriage dissolution of this case and accepted the respondent's claim for divorce, it cannot be said that there was an error of law in the incomplete hearing on the ground that the facts did not determine whether it constitutes an illegal act, which is a cause of divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code. Thus, we cannot accept

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won