In the event that a matrimonial relationship has reached a failure due to a cause attributable to both parties, whether it is appropriate to reject a petition for divorce without considering the seriousness of the liability (negative)

In an action for divorce, which constitutes "if there is any other serious reason to make it difficult to continue the marriage" as stipulated in subparagraph 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Act, where the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent causes the failure due to the causes attributable to both of the parties, the claimant's claim for divorce shall be accepted unless the liability of the claimant is recognized to be more severe than the respondent's liability. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the claimant's claim for divorce on the ground that the court below erred in the interpretation and application of the above provisions, or contradictory to the reasons, although it judged that the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent caused the failure due to the causes attributable to both of the parties, and it is difficult to continue the marriage due to the causes attributable

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu9 Decided April 25, 1988 (Gong1988,909) decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1164)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 86Reu198 delivered on February 26, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 거시증거를 종합하여 청구인과 피청구인은 1980.10.8. 혼인신고를 마친 법률상의 부부인 사실, 청구인은 그의 누나인 청구외 1의 중매로 천주교 신자로서 단국대학교 음악교육학과를 졸업한 피청구인과 1980.9.26. 결혼식을 거행하고 청구인이 삼성물산주식회사 파나마지사에서 근무하게 되자 1981.3.경부터 피청구인과 파나마국에서 동거하면서 1981.12.19. 아들 청구외 2를 낳은 사실, 그런데 청구인과 피청구인은 평소 성격이 맞지 아니하여 별로 애정이 없었고, 사소한 가정사로 다투는 등 불화가 싹터 서로간에 폭언이 오가고 때로는 약간의 폭행이 뒤따르기도 하였으나 그 정도가 심각하지는 아니하였으며 청구인의 어머니인 청구외 3이 1982.5.경 손자를 돌보아 주려고 파나마국에 와서부터 청구인과 피청구인의 생활을 보고 피청구인의 살림살이가 익숙하지 못하자 피청구인에게 정신질환이 있다고 여기며 피청구인을 못마땅하게 생각하여 자주 핀잔을 주게 되었고 그뒤부터 당시 미국 뉴욕에 살던 청구인의 누나인 청구외 4와 함께 청구인에게 수회 편지를 보내어 피청구인과의 이혼을 권유한 사실, 이와 같이 불화가 깊어져 정신적, 육체적으로 건강이 쇠약해진 피청구인은 1984.5. 하순경 청구인의 직장관계로 함께 귀국하게 되자 청구인과 시모인 청구외 3에게 말하고는 아들 청구외 2를 데리고 부산 친정으로 내려가 건강을 다지면서 생활하였으나 시모와의 정신적 갈등을 해소하지 못하고 있다가 수차에 걸친 청구인과 시댁가족의 권유를 받고는 1985.3.1. 아들 청구외 2와 함께 상경하여 시집으로 돌아온 사실, 그런데 피청구인은 그 뒤에도 시모인 청구외 3과 갈등이 계속되는 데다가 피청구인을 정신분열증환자로 몰아부친 청구외 4와 시모 사이에 오간 편지들을 발견하고는 충격을 받은 나머지 1985.3.29.경 다시 아들 청구외 2를 데리고 친정으로 내려가고 청구인으로부터 생활비보조가 없어 그 곳에서 바이올린강습소를 개설 운영하면서 현재까지 청구인과 별거하고 있으나 아직까지도 청구인과의 재결합을 간절히 바라고 있는 사실을 인정하고 위 인정에 반하는 갑제5호증 내지 갑제9호증의 각 기재, 제1심 및 원심증인 청구외 3, 제1심증인 청구외 1의 각 증언 및 원심의 청구인에 대한 본인신문결과를 모두 배척하였음을 알 수 있다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and it does not find any illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

2. The second ground of appeal is examined.

The court below determined that the defendant's appeal for divorce of this case is groundless on the premise that not only the defendant but also the claimant and the plaintiff who failed to fulfill their duty to understand and cooperate with each other in order to smoothly maintain the marital life, and that the defendant is living separately with the claimant and the defendant from March 29, 1985. Since from March 29, 195, it is insufficient to deem that there is a serious reason to make it difficult for the defendant to continue the marriage due to the reason attributable to the defendant. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff's appeal for divorce of this case on the premise that there is a serious reason to make it difficult for the defendant to continue the marital life any longer due to the reason attributable to the defendant who is a judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

With respect to an appeal for divorce which constitutes "if there is any other serious reason to make it difficult to continue the marriage" as stipulated in subparagraph 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Act, where the marital relationship between the claimant and the respondent has caused the failure due to the causes attributable to both of the parties, a claim for divorce between the claimant and the respondent, which is not deemed heavier than the respondent's liability, should be accepted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu740, Jun. 27, 1989; 87Meu9, Apr. 25, 1988; 87Meu9, Apr. 25, 1988). However, the court below's rejection of the claim for divorce on the ground that there is a serious reason to make it difficult to continue the marriage between the claimant and the respondent due to the causes attributable to both of the parties, the interpretation of Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act is erroneous or contradictory for the reason that Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act is not applicable.

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, since the marriage between the claimant and the respondent of this case is deemed to be more severe than the respondent's liability, the court below's rejection of the claimant's claim for divorce is justified and without merit.

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)