(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff had his former wife as well as his former wife in 190 and 1992. On June 13, 2005, the Defendant married with the former husband, and on June 13, 2005, the Defendant had the former husband’s wife in 1983. 2) The Plaintiff entered his former husband’s family branch in 198 and her former husband’s family branch in 198 and her former husband’s family branch in 2008. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff became aware of the Plaintiff’s pro rata relationship with the Defendant around December 2009, and there was only the Defendant’s family branch in her residence with the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the former wife agreed to file an application for divorce on January 25, 2010 with the Daegu District Court for divorce, and agreed to file a report on divorce, and completed the procedures for divorce on June 6, 2010.

3) After that, on June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff continued to contact with the Defendant and maintained friendship, and paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant at the expense of the lease deposit for the creation of a new dwelling place. From November 201, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s dwelling place and started living together with the Defendant at that place, and completed the marriage report on January 5, 201.

4) During the marriage life, the Plaintiff had 00 business, and the Defendant was living in the main room. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s surveillance during the marriage life was serious and frequent verbal abuse against the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Defendant was dissatisfied with the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was able to drink the same alcohol daily, and that the Plaintiff was able to go home late, and there was doubt about the Plaintiff’s external appearance. 5) around June 2013, the Plaintiff received text messages from Nonparty C at any time with the other women of Nonparty C, and then visited or boomed the Plaintiff’s house. At that time, the Defendant sent and sent text messages to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Defendant took the Plaintiff’s mobile phone, and then discovered that the Plaintiff was able to see that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was able to satch and satisfy and satisfy, and that it was difficult to see that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was satisfy and frighted by the Plaintiff.

6) From August 2013, the Plaintiff continuously demanded a divorce to the Defendant, and the Defendant refused to comply with this request, and voluntarily opened a house with KRW 3 million to the Defendant on August 22, 2013. 7) According to the result of the inquiry into the telephone details between the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff was given contact with C from January 1, 2013. In particular, from May 1 to December 12 of the same year, the Plaintiff was given contact with C and received considerably frequent telephone communications or text messages on almost every day including the period during which the Plaintiff got into contact with C and C from January 1, 2013.

8) Current situation: The plaintiff consistently wishes to divorce, and the defendant is unable to agree to divorce by returning home to home and restoring a smooth family life.

[Ground of recognition] The entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the statement of investigation report on the preparation of family affairs investigators, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not comply with the plaintiff's request for divorce by taking unfair treatment, such as insult, intimidation, verbal abuse, assault, etc. of the plaintiff from time to time during the marriage life, receiving money without any difficulty, or by taking advantage of the appraisal of misunderstandings or retaliations. Such error by the defendant led to the failure of the plaintiff's marriage to the extent that the plaintiff's and the defendant's marriage relation cannot be recovered any longer, and such act by the defendant constitutes a ground for divorce under Article 840 of the Civil Act, and seek a divorce with the defendant.

2) Determination.

A) The phrase “when one of the parties to a marriage is extremely maltreated by the spouse, who is a reason for divorce as stipulated in Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act” refers to cases where one of the parties to a marriage is forced to continue the marriage relationship from his/her spouse when he/she received violence, abuse, or serious insult (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Meu1890, Feb. 27, 2004).

In the instant case, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant made unfair treatment, such as insult, intimidation, verbal abuse, assault, etc. of the Plaintiff from time to time during the marriage life, by deeming the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act as claiming the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 3 of the same Act, and thus, it is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion only by the statement of evidence No. 9.

B) “When there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue marriage” as stipulated under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act refers to cases where the communal living relationship corresponding to the essence of marriage, which should be based upon difficulty and trust between the couple, has reached an irrecoverable pain for one spouse. In determining this, the existence of an intention to continue marriage, the existence of a party’s liability for causes of failure of marriage, the period of marital life, the party’s age, the party’s age, the guarantee of livelihood after divorce, and other circumstances of marriage. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to find that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would suffer from a sound marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to find that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would suffer from a marriage again due to the circumstance where the Plaintiff would have no longer suffer from an economic distress, and it is difficult to recognize that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would have any other reason for divorce than the Plaintiff’s normal marital relationship to the extent that it would be difficult to recover from the Plaintiff’s family.

Furthermore, even if the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant have broken down, in principle, a spouse who is mainly responsible for the failure of the marital life may not file a petition for divorce on the ground of the failure. However, even though it is objectively obvious that the other party has no intention to continue the marriage after the failure, there is no intention to continue the marriage, the divorce claim of the responsible spouse is exceptionally acknowledged only in exceptional circumstances such as the other party’s failure to comply with the divorce in misunderstandings or retaliation sentiment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Meu1378, Jan. 13, 2006). In this case, according to the above facts acknowledged as above, the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant caused the failure of the marriage, it is considerably frequent contact with C during the marital life to the extent that it cannot be seen as a general personal relation with C, and it is hard to accept the plaintiff’s claim for divorce without any specific reason to seek divorce from the plaintiff and the defendant's own discretion after the failure to respond to the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

2. Determination on the claim for consolation money and division of property

The plaintiff's consolation money and the claim for division of property on the premise that the plaintiff's claim for divorce is accepted are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.