Judgment on the failure of marriage and the existence of cause for action

A serious cause which makes it difficult to continue a marriage as a cause of divorce is not necessarily required due to a cause attributable to the other spouse, but it is reasonable to interpret that the case is not included due to a cause attributable to the other spouse seeking the divorce. Therefore, if the marriage is deemed to have been extinguished, the court should not examine whether the failure is attributable to the cause attributable to the other party, but shall decide whether the failure falls under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code by examining and determining whether the main cause of the failure falls under the cause attributable to the claimant.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Meu34 Delivered on February 13, 1979

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 80Reu219 delivered on July 27, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The appellant’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the appellant and the respondent did not have any other reason to recognize that the appellee had any other reason to leave the defendant's living expenses even after the date of marriage because the appellant and the respondent did not have a certain occupation, and was employed in the business of the Republic of Korea around 1976. The appellant and the respondent frequently fighting the husband and the defendant left the house at the time of May 30, 1979. The appellant can recognize the facts of this case to be known to the United States on May 30, 1980. The appellant cannot be deemed to have neglected to leave the respondent in bad faith or seriously treated the respondent, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and the respondent cannot be found to have any other reason to recognize that the respondent did not have any reason to leave the respondent's living expenses from time to time after the date of marriage, and the respondent cannot have any reason to recognize that the respondent did not have any other reason to get the respondent's living expenses to the extent that the appellant would not have been able to get her friendship between the claimant and the appellant and the defendant, even after 17 months after the date of marriage.

However, as stated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, "other serious reasons which make it difficult to continue the marriage" refers to cases where the marriage relationship has been broken down to the extent that it would cause the other spouse to sustain the marital life due to the social concept, and it is reasonable to interpret that the failure does not necessarily have to be caused by the other spouse's cause attributable to the other spouse, but it does not include cases due to the other spouse's cause attributable to the other party's spouse who seeks the divorce (see Supreme Court Decision 78Meu34 delivered on February 13, 1979). Thus, if the court below recognized that the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent was broken to the extent that it is impossible to recover due to the same cause as the other party's explanation, the court below did not examine whether the failure was caused by the cause attributable to the other party's cause or should have determined whether the cause falls under the cause attributable to the above respondent's cause under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to reverse the above grounds for divorce.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)