Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Shared responsibility for breakdown and examining both spouses' faults
Supreme Court, Apr. 14, 2022, 2021Meu15398 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 이혼
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a couple's marriage has broken down irretrievably, must a divorce claim be accepted in principle, and where the responsibility for the breakdown appears equally or similarly shared, must the court examine the circumstances of both spouses rather than conclude that the main responsibility lies with the plaintiff?
Holding
A marriage is irretrievably broken where the couple's common life, which should rest on affection and trust, has broken down to a degree that cannot be repaired and continuing the marriage would cause one spouse unbearable suffering. Where the circumstances show that state, a divorce claim must be accepted unless the plaintiff's responsibility for the breakdown is found to be heavier than the defendant's. Where the responsibility appears equally or similarly shared, the court must examine the circumstances of the marriage period as a whole and consider whether the breakdown lies with both spouses, and it commits an error of insufficient examination if it simply attributes the main responsibility to the plaintiff and dismisses the claim.
Points at issue, verbatim
파탄의 원인에 대한 책임이 당사자 사이에 동등하거나 비슷하게 있다고 볼 여지가 있으므로, 갑과 을 사이에 혼인기간 중에 있었던 사정을 종합적으로 살펴 혼인파탄의 원인이 배우자 한쪽이 아닌 양쪽 모두에게 있는 것이 아닌지 심리를 한 다음
Unofficial English translation
there was room for regarding the responsibility for the cause of the breakdown as equal or similar between the parties, the court below should have comprehensively examined the circumstances that had arisen during the marriage between A and B and conducted deliberations on whether the cause of the marital breakdown lay with both spouses rather than with only one spouse, and then
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원가정법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon Family 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, 그 밖에 혼인관계에 관한 여러 사정을 두루 고려해야 하고
Unofficial English translation
the presence or absence of the intention to continue the marriage, the presence or absence of the parties' responsibility for the cause of the breakdown, the duration of the marital life, the presence or absence of children, the ages of the parties, the means of support after divorce, and various other circumstances concerning the marital relationship must all be taken into consideration, and
Factors
- 법률상 부부인 갑과 을이 장기간 별거 중에 서로 재산에 관한 민사소송을 하고, 상호 간 형사고소를 하여 함께 형사처벌을 받는 등 크고 작은 다툼을 계속한 사안에서
- 혼인관계는 이미 부부 공동생활관계가 회복할 수 없을 정도로 파탄되고
- 혼인생활의 계속을 강제하는 것이 갑에게 참을 수 없는 고통이 되는 경우에 해당하며
- 파탄의 원인에 대한 책임이 당사자 사이에 동등하거나 비슷하게 있다고 볼 여지가 있으므로
- 혼인파탄의 원인이 배우자 한쪽이 아닌 양쪽 모두에게 있는 것이 아닌지 심리를 한 다음
Unofficial English translation
• In a case where A and B, who were legally married, engaged in civil actions against each other concerning property during a prolonged period of living apart, filed criminal complaints against each other and were punished together, and continued disputes both large and small, where
• the marital relationship had already broken down to such an extent that the marital community of life could not be restored, and
• forcing the continuation of the marital life constituted intolerable suffering to A, and
• there was room for regarding the responsibility for the cause of the breakdown as equal or similar between the parties, and therefore
• after deliberating on whether the cause of the marital breakdown lay with both spouses rather than with only one spouse,
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
If one spouse's affair is shown to have directly caused the breakdown, does that exclude a finding that the responsibility for the breakdown is shared with the other spouse?
The remand judgment, once it examines the circumstances of the marriage period and decides where the responsibility for the breakdown lies, will show how this standard is applied. A later Supreme Court decision on Article 840(vi) of the Civil Act or on the divorce claim of a spouse at fault, or an amendment to that provision, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If one spouse's affair is shown to have directly caused the breakdown, does that exclude a finding that the responsibility for the breakdown is shared with the other spouse?” vs Independent “Will further examination on remand establish comparable fault between the spouses and justify granting the divorce?”
The primary reading asks whether one spouse's affair as a direct cause excludes shared responsibility, while the independent reading asks whether remand findings will establish comparable fault and justify divorce.
파탄의 원인에 대한 책임이 당사자 사이에 동등하거나 비슷하게 있다고 볼 여지가 있으므로, 갑과 을 사이에 혼인기간 중에 있었던 사정을 종합적으로 살펴 혼인파탄의 원인이 배우자 한쪽이 아닌 양쪽 모두에게 있는 것이 아닌지 심리를 한 다음Raw 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 Suwon Family Court, in its judgment of 16 September 2021 (2020Reu891), dismissed the plaintiff's claim for divorce, holding that the main responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage lay with the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had an improper relationship with a housekeeper, A, who had worked during the period of separation.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the material the defendant submitted and the circumstances in the record did not permit the finding that the affair was the direct cause of the breakdown, and that there was room to view the responsibility for the breakdown as equally or similarly shared. It held that the court below had failed to examine whether the breakdown lay with both spouses and had misunderstood Article 840(vi) of the Civil Act and the law on the divorce claim of a spouse at fault, and reversed the judgment. The Justices unanimously remanded the case to the Suwon Family Court for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the plaintiff's responsibility for the breakdown is found to be heavier than the defendant's, since the claim is then to be rejected.
- A marriage in which the couple's common life has not broken down to a degree that cannot be repaired, so that the standard in Article 840(vi) of the Civil Act is not met.
- A case in which the evidence does establish that one spouse's conduct directly caused the breakdown, so that responsibility cannot be said to be shared.
Record verification notes
Set the file against each circumstance the Court listed, namely the will to continue the marriage, responsibility for the breakdown, the length of married life, children, the parties' ages and livelihood after divorce, and confirm whether the court below examined them all and gave reasons for its attribution of main responsibility. Gather what the defendant offers on the alleged affair and test whether it shows a direct causal link to the breakdown. Note that the Court relied on the absence of any meaningful effort by the defendant to restore the marriage.
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] 법률상 부부인 갑과 을이 장기간 별거 중에 서로 재산에 관한 민사소송을 하고, 상호 간 형사고소를 하여 함께 형사처벌을 받는 등 크고 작은 다툼을 계속한 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어, 갑과 을의 혼인관계는 이미 부부 공동생활관계가 회복할 수 없을 정도로 파탄되고 혼인생활의 계속을 강제하는 것이 갑에게 참을 수 없는 고통이 되는 경우에 해당하며, 파탄의 원인에 대한 책임이 당사자 사이에 동등하거나 비슷하게 있다고 볼 여지가 있으므로, 갑과 을 사이에 혼인기간 중에 있었던 사정을 종합적으로 살펴 혼인파탄의 원인이 배우자 한쪽이 아닌 양쪽 모두에게 있는 것이 아닌지 심리를 한 다음, 민법 제840조 제6호에서 정한 이혼사유에 해당할 여지가 없는지에 관하여 판단했어야 하는데도, 혼인파탄의 주된 책임이 갑에게 있다고 단정하고 갑의 이혼 청구를 배척한 원심판결에 심리미진 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning and criteria for determining the ground for divorce set forth in Article 840 (6) of the Civil Act, 'where there are serious grounds for making it difficult to continue the marriage' / whether a claim for divorce must be accepted where the marital relationship of the spouses has broken down beyond repair (affirmative in principle) [2] In a case where A and B, who were legally married, engaged in civil actions against each other concerning property during a prolonged period of living apart, filed criminal complaints against each other and were punished together, and continued disputes both large and small, where, in light of all the circumstances, the marital relationship of A and B had already broken down to such an extent that the marital community of life could not be restored, and forcing the continuation of the marital life constituted intolerable suffering to A, and there was room for regarding the responsibility for the cause of the breakdown as equal or similar between the parties, the court below should have comprehensively examined the circumstances that had arisen during the marriage between A and B, conducted deliberations on whether the cause of the marital breakdown lay with both spouses rather than with only one spouse, and then determined whether there was room for finding that the ground for divorce set forth in Article 840 (6) of the Civil Act was satisfied; yet the judgment of the court below, which summarily concluded that the principal responsibility for the marital breakdown lay with A and dismissed A's claim for divorce, is erroneous on the ground of failure to exhaust deliberations, among others
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원가정법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon Family 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