The right to litigation is deemed ensured to all, provided such right is not misused in seeking remedy. It is the grieved litigant that shall bear the burden of proof of abusing the right to litigation. When the right holder thinks that harm may occur due to misusing its right, it is not sufficient for the harm intent to exist. When the person merely seeks remedy and his action is dismissed, this shall not be deemed an illegitimate right to litigation. The trial court shall have the authority to weigh whether or not the bad faith, malice and harm intent to the litigant are proven. The contested judgment, by ruling that the respondent did not deviate from its right to litigate into malice, compulsion and hostility because the appellant fell short of proving any abuse of litigation right set forth in Article 106, Civil Transactions Law, and the respondent presented the order banning the appellant from travel in pursuit of the respondent's remedies, shall be deemed reasonable and well-proven in the documents.