South Korea’s strict adherence to a “fault-based” divorce system, known as yuchak-jui, faces growing scrutiny as legal experts and the public debate whether the country should transition to a “no-fault” or breakdown-based system (patan-jui) used by most OECD nations, according to reporting by Yonhap News Agency.
South Korea Retains Fault-Based Divorce While Global Peers Shift
Most OECD member countries—including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan—process divorce proceedings by evaluating whether a marriage has broken down irretrievably rather than investigating which spouse caused the split. In contrast, South Korean civil law maintains a fault-based approach that generally rejects divorce petitions filed by spouses who bear responsibility for the marital breakdown.
This system is intended to prevent “eviction divorces,” a practice where a wrongdoing spouse or economically stronger partner suddenly abandons a vulnerable spouse, such as an infidelity victim or an economically dependent partner. This tension frequently surfaces in high-profile courtroom battles, such as the legal proceedings between SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and Art Center Nabi Director Roh Soh-yeong. In that case, the court dismissed Chairman Chey’s divorce petition due to the fault of the existence of a child born out of wedlock, but granted Roh Soh-yeong’s counter-claim for divorce.
Practical Shifts in South Korean Courts
Despite statutory reliance on fault, South Korean courts increasingly grant divorces through breakdown-based reasoning by recognizing statutory clauses that allow dissolution under “other grave reasons making it difficult to sustain the marriage.” The divorce proceedings of Smilegate founder and Hope Studio Chairman Kwon Hyuk-bin illustrate this trend. Although Chairman Kwon contested the divorce, the court approved his spouse’s petition after determining that the marital relationship had deteriorated beyond repair.
Such rulings drive arguments from legal analysts suggesting that South Korea should align with international standards and officially adopt a breakdown-based framework. Critics of the current system contend that forcing couples to maintain empty legal bonds serves little practical purpose.
Economic Protections and Public Sentiment Remain Hurdles
A transition to a breakdown-based framework faces resistance over concerns about protecting economically vulnerable spouses before adequate legal safeguards take effect. Legal professionals point out that standardizing fair asset division ratios remains a complex challenge for the judiciary.
Because breakdown-based systems permit at-fault spouses to initiate divorce actions, the approach frequently clashes with prevailing public legal sentiment. Even so, public discussions persist regarding whether the judiciary should move away from forcing couples to remain in legally mandated marriages that have lost all substantive function.
Keep reading