Whether a claim for divorce can be dismissed only with the explanation of the reason that the defendant does not have any cause attributable to him/her, regardless of whether both parties are responsible for the failure of marriage and seriousness thereof.

The plaintiff's claim for divorce should be accepted unless the plaintiff's responsibility is recognized to be more severe than the defendant's responsibility. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for divorce on the ground that it is difficult to view that the marital relationship has reached a failure due to a cause attributable to the defendant without considering the existence and seriousness of each responsibility of the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application of Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act or failing to properly state the reasons therefor.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu375 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 965) 90Meu1067 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2158) 92Meu549 delivered on November 10, 192 (Gong193, 112)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

The principal of the case and one other

Seoul Family Court Decision 92Reu20 delivered on December 16, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion and found that the plaintiff and the defendant received 1,000 won from the non-party 1's husband and wife who completed the marriage report on November 28, 1985 and received 2,000 won from the non-party 1's husband and wife, and the plaintiff was expected to receive economic assistance from his wife, but since the defendant's friendship did not have economic assistance, the defendant borrowed 5,00,000 won from the non-party 1's wife and provided 1,000 won from the non-party 1's husband and the defendant did not receive 9,000 won from the non-party 1's husband and the defendant received 0,000 won from the non-party 1's plaintiff 1's husband and 1,000 won from the non-party 1's first day of August 1, 199 to the non-party 1's daily life.

According to records and evidence, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

2. On the second ground for appeal

After the fact-finding, the court below held that all of the plaintiff's claim for divorce and the claim for designation of the exercise of parental authority, which are premised on the fact that the above marital relationship has reached a failure due to the defendant's responsible cause, shall not be deemed to have reached a failure to the extent that it cannot be seen that the marital relationship of this case has reached a failure to the extent that it

However, according to the above facts acknowledged by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant of this case reached the failure to recover to the extent that it is difficult to expect it to continue the marriage, and therefore, it constitutes "where there is any other serious reason that makes it difficult to continue the marriage" as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and where it is recognized that the plaintiff's liability is more severe than the defendant's liability, the plaintiff's claim for divorce should be accepted unless the plaintiff's liability is acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1067, Jul. 9, 191; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu375, Mar. 27, 190; 8Meu375, Mar. 27, 1990). The court below acknowledged the above facts, and judged that it is difficult to view that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant has reached the failure to continue the marriage due to the reason attributable to the defendant, and rejected the plaintiff's claim for divorce.

However, according to the above facts established by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's responsibility is more severe than the defendant's responsibility with respect to the failure of the above marital relationship. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified and without merit.

In addition, if it is objectively obvious that the defendant has no intention to continue the marriage, even if there is a heavy liability for the failure of the plaintiff, the case of a party member to accept the claim for divorce is identical to the theory of lawsuit. However, just because the arguments are cited, it cannot be objectively clear that the defendant has no intention to continue the marriage. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)