[1] Whether there is a benefit in appeal in a case where there is a complaint only for the reasons for the judgment (negative)

[2] The method of calculating the amount of consolation money to the responsible spouse

[3] When the plaintiff's claim was partially accepted in the first instance court, the appeal against the part against which only the plaintiff lost was filed, and the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's appeal due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal (negative)

[1] An appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to an appellant in his/her own favor. Whether a judgment is disadvantageous to appellant should, in principle, be determined on the basis of the main text of the judgment. Therefore, if there is no complaint as to the cited part of the claim in the main text of the judgment, even if there is a complaint as to the reasoning of the judgment, there is no

[2] In calculating the amount of consolation money for a responsible spouse, the court shall determine ex officio the amount by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the pleading, such as the circumstance and degree leading up to the responsible act, the cause and responsibility of the dissolution of marriage, the spouse's age and financial status.

[3] In the first instance court where the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was partially accepted, only the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the lost part, and the Defendant did not file an appeal or incidental appeal, and when the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, the Defendant’s appeal is unlawful as it does not have any interest in the appeal.

[1] Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act, Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 843 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 415 and 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Meu826, 833 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 109), Supreme Court Decision 94Meu895 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 674) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 80Meu100 delivered on October 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 1451), Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5 and 6 delivered on May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 107, 1073), Supreme Court Decision 87Meu55, 56 delivered on October 28, 198 (Gong1987, 19795) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 200Da38394 delivered on April 29, 192; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da93894 delivered on April 13, 19972

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Reu73, 80 decided September 17, 2003

The part concerning the claim for divorce and the claim for division of property among the appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff is dismissed, and the part concerning the claim for consolation money is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim

1. As to the claim for divorce

An appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, and in principle, whether a judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant shall be determined on the basis of the text of the judgment. If there is no complaint as to the cited part of the claim in the text of the judgment, even if there is a complaint on the grounds of the judgment, there is no benefit of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Meu826, 833, Nov. 25, 1994; 94Meu895, Dec. 27, 1994).

According to the records, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for divorce on the ground that the marital relationship between the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") is the principal responsibility for causing the failure of the marriage, and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which admitted the defendant's claim for divorce. The defendant does not have any complaint on the part of the claim for divorce on the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, but it is evident that the defendant filed an appeal on the ground that there was an error in the part of the defendant's explanation that the marital relationship has been partially responsible for causing the failure of the marriage on the grounds of the judgment. Thus,

2. As to the claim for consolation money

In calculating the amount of consolation money for a responsible spouse, the court shall determine ex officio by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in pleadings, such as the circumstance and degree leading up to the responsible act, the cause and responsibility of the dissolution of marriage, the spouse's age and financial status (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5, 6, May 26, 1987, etc.).

Based on the facts in its reasoning, the court below determined the amount of consolation money as KRW 15 million in consideration of various circumstances as stated in its ruling, such as the circumstance and responsibility leading up to the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, the spouse's age and property status, etc. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the circumstances to be considered in the calculation of consolation money or misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. As to the claim for division of property

In the first instance court, when the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was partially accepted, only the plaintiff filed an appeal against the part against which the defendant lost, and the defendant did not file an appeal or incidental appeal. When the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, the defendant's appeal is unlawful as it does not have any interest in the appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da24431 delivered on December 28, 192, etc.).

According to the records, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant to pay KRW 120 million as the division of property, but the first instance court ordered the defendant to pay KRW 60 million as the division of property, only the plaintiff filed an appeal against the part against which the plaintiff lost. The defendant did not file an appeal or incidental appeal, and it is evident that the defendant filed an appeal on the ground that the defendant's debt and the plaintiff's claim were excluded from the property subject to division, as the plaintiff's appeal against the part of the claim for division of property was dismissed. Thus, the part on the claim for division of property among the defendant's appeal is unlawful because there is no benefit to

4. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s appeal regarding divorce and the claim for division of property 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)