Supreme Court: Even a 'Faulty Spouse' Who Runs Away Can File for Divorce

1st and 2nd Trials "No Effort to Reconcile... Spouse Also Has No Intention to Divorce"
Supreme Court "Long-term Separation Solidified... Marital Relationship Broken, No Possibility of Recovery"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that if a spouse who has not made efforts to restore the relationship refuses a divorce, the at-fault spouse can still file for divorce.

Through this ruling, the Supreme Court specifically presented the criteria for exceptionally allowing divorce claims by the at-fault spouse and concretized, for the first time, the standards and methods for determining the "other spouse's intention to continue the marriage."

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 13th that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim in a divorce case where the at-fault spouse, who had lost once, filed for divorce again, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Mr. A, unable to overcome conflicts with his wife Ms. B, left the house and filed for divorce against Ms. B, but the court dismissed the claim on the grounds that "Mr. A bears more responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage."

The two entered a period of separation, and while Mr. A provided child support and tried to contact Ms. B whenever he wanted to see the child, Ms. B refused to show the child, stating that relationship improvement should come first.

Mr. A filed for divorce again, but both the first and second trials dismissed the claim, stating that Mr. A did not return home or make any efforts to improve the relationship with Ms. B, repeatedly filed lawsuits demanding divorce, and Ms. B expressed that she had no intention of divorce, only hoping for Mr. A to return home.

However, the Supreme Court sent the case back for retrial, stating that the second trial did not objectively examine whether Ms. B had the intention to continue the marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled that to recognize the other spouse's intention to continue the marriage, it is necessary to objectively assess, by comprehensively considering the spouse's words and behavior, whether there is an intention to fulfill the duty to cooperate in maintaining the marriage.

The court stated, "If the other spouse continues to criticize the at-fault spouse's faultfulness, which was an issue in the previous lawsuit, demands unilateral concessions from the at-fault spouse, or if circumstances incompatible with the restoration of the marriage remain unresolved and a long-term separation has become fixed, it is considered that the marriage has already broken down and there is no possibility of recovery."

However, the Supreme Court also judged that if the refusal to divorce stems from concerns about the mental, social, economic status, and livelihood security of oneself and minor children after divorce, it should not be hastily concluded that there is no intention to continue the marriage.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.