Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Irretrievable breakdown and comparative fault of both spouses
Supreme Court, Aug. 19, 2021, 2021Meu12108 (judgment)
Case name: 이혼위자료및재산분할청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does a serious reason making it difficult to continue the marriage under Article 840(vi) of the Civil Act mean, must a divorce claim be accepted once the marriage is found to have broken down beyond repair, and in a case where the plaintiff's past affair was followed by years of the defendant's distrust and criticism, was the court below right to fix the main responsibility on the plaintiff and dismiss the claim?
Holding
It means that the shared marital life, which rests on the affection and trust at the heart of marriage, has broken down beyond repair and that forcing the marriage to continue would be unbearable suffering for one spouse. The court weighs all the circumstances of the marriage, and once the relationship is found to have broken down beyond repair, the divorce claim must be accepted unless the plaintiff's fault for the breakdown is found heavier than the defendant's. In this case, absent evidence that the plaintiff had committed any further affair, the past affair could not be treated as the direct cause of the present breakdown, so the court below had to examine whether the cause lay with both spouses rather than one.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 사정을 고려하여 부부의 혼인관계가 돌이킬 수 없을 정도로 파탄되었다고 인정된다면 파탄의 원인에 대한 원고의 책임이 피고의 책임보다 더 무겁다고 인정되지 않는 한 이혼 청구를 받아들여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
If, upon consideration of such circumstances, the marital relationship between the spouses is recognized to have broken down irretrievably, a claim for divorce must be accepted, unless the plaintiff's responsibility for the cause of the breakdown is recognized to be heavier than the defendant's.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
혼인계속의사의 유무, 파탄의 원인에 관한 당사자의 책임 유무, 혼인생활의 기간, 자녀의 유무, 당사자의 연령, 이혼 후의 생활보장 등 혼인관계에 관한 여러 사정을 두루 고려하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
comprehensive consideration must be given to the various circumstances concerning the marital relationship, such as whether there is an intention to continue the marriage, whether the parties bear responsibility for the cause of the breakdown, the duration of the marital life, whether there are children, the parties' ages, and their livelihood security after divorce, and
Factors
- 혼인계속의사의 유무
- 파탄의 원인에 관한 당사자의 책임 유무
- 혼인생활의 기간
- 자녀의 유무
- 당사자의 연령, 이혼 후의 생활보장
Unofficial English translation
• Whether there is an intention to continue the marriage
• Whether the parties bear responsibility for the cause of the breakdown
• The duration of the marital life
• Whether there are children
• The parties' ages and their livelihood security after divorce
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1991. 7. 9. 선고 90므1067 판결(공1991, 2158), 대법원 2021. 3. 25. 선고 2020므14763 판결(공2021상, 891)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1067 decided July 9, 1991 (Gong 1991, 2158); Supreme Court Decision 2020Meu14763 decided March 25, 2021 (Gong 2021 Sang, 891)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1991. 7. 9. 선고 90므1067 판결(공1991, 2158), 대법원 2021. 3. 25. 선고 2020므14763 판결(공2021상, 891)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How heavy must the plaintiff's fault be before it counts as heavier than the defendant's where both spouses are found to have caused the breakdown?
A later Supreme Court decision weighing the comparative fault of both spouses in a case of an old affair would call for this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 840(vi) of the Civil Act would likewise require a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 25 March 2021 (2020Reu20470), held that the main responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage lay with the plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for divorce. The reasons the Supreme Court set out record that the plaintiff had kept an affair with the owner of a bakery for some eight years from around 2003, during which the marriage was in a state of breakdown.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the affair had ended long before and, absent evidence of any later affair, could not be treated as the direct cause of the current breakdown. It was for the court below to examine, taking together all that had passed between the spouses after the affair ended, whether the cause of the breakdown lay with both spouses rather than one, and to decide on that basis whether Article 840(vi) might apply. Finding that the court below had instead fixed the main responsibility on the plaintiff, had failed to examine what was needed and had misunderstood the law on the erring spouse, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the plaintiff's fault for the breakdown is found heavier than the defendant's, so that the divorce claim must be refused.
- A case in which evidence shows that the spouse who had the earlier affair committed a further affair afterwards, so that the earlier affair may itself be the direct cause of the present breakdown.
- A case in which the marital life has not broken down beyond repair, since the standard requires an irretrievable breakdown.
Record verification notes
Set out the whole chronology of the marriage after the earlier affair ended, and gather what each spouse did during that period, since the Court asked for the circumstances between them to be examined together. Keep the question of fault separate from the question of breakdown: the claim is accepted unless the plaintiff's fault is found the heavier of the two. Confirm which version of Article 840(vi) of the Civil Act governed the date of the judgment below.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민법 제840조 제6호에서 정한 이혼사유인 ‘혼인을 계속하기 어려운 중대한 사유가 있을 때’의 의미 및 판단 기준 / 부부의 혼인관계가 돌이킬 수 없을 정도로 파탄되었다고 인정되는 경우, 이혼 청구를 받아들여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 갑과 을은 혼인신고를 마친 법률상 부부로서, 갑의 외도 사실을 알고도 을이 가정을 유지하겠다는 선택을 하여 오랜 기간 부부관계를 유지해 왔는데, 이후에 을의 갑에 대한 불신과 비난 등이 지속되자, 갑이 을을 상대로 혼인관계가 파탄되었다고 주장하며 이혼 등을 구한 사안에서, 현재 혼인 파탄의 원인이 배우자 일방이 아닌 양측 모두에게 있는 것이 아닌지 심리를 한 다음, 민법 제840조 제6호에서 정한 이혼사유에 해당할 여지가 없는지에 관하여 판단했어야 하는데도, 혼인 파탄의 주된 책임이 갑에게 있다고 단정하고 갑의 이혼 청구를 배척한 원심판결에 법리 등을 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning and criteria for determining "when there are serious grounds for deeming it difficult to continue the marriage," which constitutes a ground for divorce under Article 840, subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act / Where a marital relationship between spouses is recognized to have broken down irretrievably, whether a claim for divorce should be accepted (in principle, affirmative) [2] A and B are spouses in law who have completed marriage registration, and although B, upon learning of A's infidelity, chose to maintain the family and the marital relationship was maintained for a long period of time, thereafter, as B's distrust of and reproaches toward A persisted, A filed against B a claim for divorce and other relief asserting that the marital relationship had broken down, a case in which the judgment of the court below, even though it should have heard evidence on whether the cause of the marital breakdown lay not with only one of the spouses but with both sides and then determined whether the case fell within the ground for divorce provided in Article 840, subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, conclusively presumed that the principal responsibility for the marital breakdown lay with A and dismissed A's claim for divorce, thereby erred in legal principle, among other things
Summary of the holding
[1] 민법 제840조 제6호에서 정한 이혼사유인 ‘혼인을 계속하기 어려운 중대한 사유가 있을 때’란 부부간의 애정과 신뢰가 바탕이 되어야 할 혼인의 본질에 상응하는 부부공동생활관계가 회복할 수 없을 정도로 파탄되고 혼인생활의 계속을 강제하는 것이 일방 배우자에게 참을 수 없는 고통이 되는 경우를 말한다. 이를 판단할 때에는 혼인계속의사의 유무, 파탄의 원인에 관한 당사자의 책임 유무, 혼인생활의 기간, 자녀의 유무, 당사자의 연령, 이혼 후의 생활보장 등 혼인관계에 관한 여러 사정을 두루 고려하여야 하고, 이러한 사정을 고려하여 부부의 혼인관계가 돌이킬 수 없을 정도로 파탄되었다고 인정된다면 파탄의 원인에 대한 원고의 책임이 피고의 책임보다 더 무겁다고 인정되지 않는 한 이혼 청구를 받아들여야 한다. [2] 갑과 을은 혼인신고를 마친 법률상 부부로서, 갑의 외도 사실을 알고도 을이 가정을 유지하겠다는 선택을 하여 오랜 기간 부부관계를 유지해 왔는데, 이후에 을의 갑에 대한 불신과 비난 등이 지속되자, 갑이 을을 상대로 혼인관계가 파탄되었다고 주장하며 이혼 등을 구한 사안에서, 갑의 과거 외도로 당시 갑과 을의 혼인관계는 파탄상황에 있었다고 할 수 있으나, 을이 이를 알게 된 다음에도 갑을 다시 받아들여 가정을 유지하겠다는 선택을 하였고 오랜 기간 부부관계를 유지하였으며, 갑이 그 이후에 다른 부정행위를 하였다고 볼 증거가 없는 이상, 과거에 있었던 갑의 외도 사실이 현재 혼인관계 파탄의 직접적인 원인이라고 볼 수 없고, 갑의 외도 문제가 끝난 후 오랜 시간이 지난 과정에서 갑과 을 사이에 있었던 사정들을 종합적으로 살펴보아, 현재 혼인 파탄의 원인이 배우자 일방이 아닌 양측 모두에게 있는 것이 아닌지 심리를 한 다음, 민법 제840조 제6호에서 정한 이혼사유에 해당할 여지가 없는지에 관하여 판단했어야 하는데도, 혼인 파탄의 주된 책임이 갑에게 있다고 단정하고 갑의 이혼 청구를 배척한 원심판결에 법리 등을 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제840조 제6호 [2] 민법 제840조 제6호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger