Defendant B

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant all filed a marriage report at C in Yongcheon-si, which is in the Republic of Korea (the Plaintiff acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea by naturalization around October 2010) and on March 30, 201, and were living together from October 23 of the same year.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were suffering from infertility due to money problems, family problems, etc. after marriage.

28. A dispute between the two parties was committed, and the plaintiff was blicked with the defendant, and the defendant was pushed away from the door, etc. Accordingly, the defendant is working at a cafeteria near the Suwon-si, and is living separately with the plaintiff until now.

C. On December 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce of this case as the Defendant did not participate in the marriage ceremony between the Plaintiff and the former wife.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, investigation report by family affairs investigators, purpose of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff's refusal to live together with the plaintiff and the defendant's failure to return home, and the plaintiff and the defendant's marital relationship were sought a divorce with the defendant. As to whether the marital relationship corresponding to the essence of the marriage that should be based on difficulties and trust between the plaintiff and the defendant has reached an irrecoverable level, the plaintiff and the defendant are currently living separately and they did not return home, and the defendant did not attend the plaintiff's marriage ceremony. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's birth did not appear to have reached a relatively long-term period of time by the plaintiff's entry of Eul evidence No. 1 and domestic affairs investigator's investigation report and arguments, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's birth did not go home to the extent that the plaintiff did not return home to the plaintiff's birth, and that the defendant did not return to the plaintiff and the defendant's remaining home, and the defendant did not return to the plaintiff's remaining home, and the defendant did not return to the plaintiff's remaining home life and the defendant's remaining home life within 10 days of China.

3. Conclusion

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