Why At Fault Spouse Divorce Petitions Often Get Dismissed in Korea

In consultations, I am often asked, "Isn't it advantageous if I file for divorce first?" The actual stance of the Family Court is often the opposite. When one's own fault is greater, filing for divorce may result in the petition itself being dismissed — this case clearly illustrates the "fault doctrine" Korea generally maintains.

The plaintiff was a dermatologist and hospital director; the defendant was a former school staff member who had been a full-time homemaker raising their children since 2001. They had one adult child and one minor child. The plaintiff husband proposed divorce to the wife in March 2016 and, when no agreement was reached, filed for divorce in May. In August, he left the home and began separation at a nearby officetel.

The plaintiff's grounds were two: first, the defendant's excessive use of credit cards (overconsumption); second, behavior suggesting morbid jealousy. He also sought 20 million KRW in consolation money.

It was established that the defendant's credit card usage in 2015 was about 170 million KRW. However, after considering the husband's income, household management, child rearing costs, and medical costs, the court concluded that "this level of spending cannot be seen as a principal cause of marital breakdown."

The important point is that what matters is not the "absolute amount" but the "balance with overall household income." The same 170 million KRW is evaluated differently depending on whose household, who used it, and for what purpose.

The plaintiff argued that the wife suspected him of infidelity to a morbid degree. But the court found her suspicion had some basis. While the plaintiff was separated and living in the officetel, he was observed leaving the home of a woman residing in another unit at around 8:30 a.m.

In family cases, "morbid jealousy" is a heavy word. Unless a medical evaluation of delusion is possible, mere suspicion is hard to treat as the other spouse's fault. In this case, circumstances supporting the suspicion existed, so the "morbid jealousy" claim itself was not accepted.

The plaintiff left the home in August and began separation. But the court held that the separation period was not long, and that the divorce issue was discussed seriously only shortly before suit, ruling that "the marital relationship is not seen as having broken down to the point of irrecoverability."

In consultations, many ask, "Now that we are separated, isn't divorce nearly possible?" Usually, the Family Court looks not only at separation itself but at how it began, the period, and recovery efforts during it. A short separation alone rarely becomes a decisive ground, as this judgment shows.

The core sentence of the ruling: "Even assuming the marital relationship had broken down, the plaintiff bears greater responsibility for filing for divorce and leaving the home without sincere efforts." The court considered the following.

• While the defendant mentioned financial conditions for divorce, this was in response to the plaintiff's proposal
• The defendant consistently and strongly wanted to maintain the home for the children
• Therefore, it is insufficient to conclude that the defendant refused divorce purely for financial reasons

Ultimately the plaintiff's divorce and consolation money claims were dismissed, and the plaintiff bore the costs. The party most wanting divorce was unable to obtain it because they were the at-fault spouse.

The Supreme Court has long maintained, in principle, that an at-fault spouse's divorce petition is not granted. However, exceptions are possible in cases such as:

• Where the other spouse no longer substantively intends to maintain the marriage but refuses divorce only out of vindictive or malicious motives
• Where the separation period is very long and the possibility of recovery is effectively gone
• Where the children are all adults and divorce no longer creates a need for protection of the other spouse

These exception requirements are usually strictly evaluated. "My fault is greater, but enough time has passed, so please grant it" alone is usually insufficient.

In consultations with people considering divorce, I ask the following first.

• Can you confidently say which side bears greater responsibility for the marital breakdown?
• For the other spouse's alleged fault, do you have objective material to prove it?
• If separated, can you prove that recovery efforts were made just before separation?
• Have you sufficiently considered the possibility of dismissal and how the family relationship would unfold afterward?

If your answers to these four are unclear, it is safer to receive a stage-by-stage review before filing. As this ruling shows, filing first and being dismissed usually worsens the situation.

Q. If the spouse clearly did something wrong but I also bear partial responsibility, is divorce difficult? A. When both bear responsibility, courts usually compare-balance whose responsibility is greater. If yours is greater, the petition may be dismissed; it is safer to review the weight of responsibility and evidence before filing.

Q. How long must separation last to be considered unrecoverable? A. There is no fixed standard. The court considers how the separation began, recovery efforts during separation, child-rearing circumstances, and economic dependence comprehensively, so the same period is evaluated differently by case.

If you would like a brief look at how your divorce petition may flow, send the facts through Get a consultation by chat now.

Jonjae Law Firm Family and Inheritance Team Family and Inheritance attorneys Last reviewed 2026-05-30

This article is general legal information and does not replace legal advice for individual cases.

This case once again confirms that "who, objectively, did more wrong" governs the outcome of family cases. The Family Court does not look at individual circumstances — card usage, suspicious behavior, separation — in isolation. It evaluates, across the entire timeline from the start of the marriage to its breakdown, the choices each side made. So rather than mapping one case's conclusion to your case, it is safer to first examine "how my role appears across the entire timeline I have lived."

And as with this ruling, after a petition is dismissed, the burden in a second filing usually increases, since the first record becomes material for the next case. So family cases are usually more favorable in cost, time, and emotion when started at a time when "clean resolution" is possible.