A. The meaning of "where there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code," and the criteria for judgment thereof.

B. Whether there exists a claim for divorce by a responsible spouse, who is not the main person responsible for the failure of marriage (affirmative)

A. "When there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage", which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, means the case where the joint-living relationship between the couple corresponding to the essence of the marriage has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and enforcing the continuation of the marital life will not bring about any pain to one spouse. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue the marriage, the existence of a party regarding the cause of the failure, the period of marital life, the existence of children, the party's age, the guarantee of livelihood after divorce, and all other circumstances of the marital relationship shall

B. If the marital relationship between the husband and the wife has been broken down to such an extent as to be impossible, the claimant's claim for divorce shall be accepted unless the cause of the failure is formed by a cause for which the claimant should assume the whole or main responsibility to the claimant, or the claimant's liability is deemed to be larger than the respondent's liability.

Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 78Meu34 delivered on February 13, 1979 (Gong1979, 11808) and Decision 87Meu24 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1393). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu9 delivered on April 25, 198, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu9 (Gong198, 909) and Decision 88Meu375 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong190, 965)

Appellee-Appellant (Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Appellant Defendant-Appellant et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Reu91 delivered on November 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, nor can it be said that the facts are recognized without any evidence.

There is no reason to argue that the reasons for the argument are attributable to the fact-finding by the court below, which is the exclusive authority of the court below.

As to the first and second points

In addition, if the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, it is just in the judgment of the court below that the marriage life of the claimant and the respondent was no longer sustained, and that the liability for the failure of the marriage was no longer or greater than all for either party, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 840 (Causes for Judicial Divorce) 6 of the Civil Code or in the incomplete hearing.

"When there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act" means the case where the marital relationship which corresponds to the essence of the marriage has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover the marital relationship, and compelling the continuance of the marital life to join one spouse is a cause for which it is impossible to join the other spouse. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue the marriage, the period of marital life, the existence of children, the age of the parties concerned, the guarantee of livelihood after the divorce, and all other circumstances of the marital relationship should be taken into consideration. If the marital relationship of the married couple is deemed to have been broken to the extent that it is impossible to take account of the overall circumstances, the cause for the failure should be created entirely or mainly responsible for the claimant for the divorce, or if the claimant's liability is deemed to be greater than the respondent's liability (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu24, Jul. 21, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 200Meu8797, Apr. 37, 1985).

However, considering all the circumstances admitted by the court below, it is deemed that the marital life of the claimant and the respondent has been broken down to the extent that it cannot be demanded or expected to continue the marital life, and the responsibility created by the cause cannot be said to be the claimant entirely or mainly responsible, and it cannot be said that the court below's acceptance of the

The issue is to criticize the judgment of the court below on the grounds of part of the facts admitted by the court below, but it is reasonable to judge whether the marriage between the claimant and the respondent has been broken down, what is the location and degree of responsibility, and whether this constitutes a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code or not, by considering all the facts admitted by the court below and all the circumstances above, and the precedents of the lawsuit are inappropriate.

In addition, the decision of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of litigation or incomplete hearing. There is no reason to discuss the issue.

Therefore, the appeal 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.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)