2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple on October 15, 1968 and have three adult children among themselves.

B. On October 1969, the defendant was employed and worked for a stock company if 00 persons located in Songdong, Busan, Busan, and the defendant was employed for 00 unemployment located in Yangsan, around 1978, and was retired from office around 1997. The plaintiff was in charge of raising home and children, and is currently working for cleaning buildings, etc.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were living together from 2005 to 2005, and the Plaintiff was living together at the house of 000, an infant, after performing the pulmonary operation around 2005, and was living separately from around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4 (including number, hereinafter the same shall apply), family affairs investigator's report, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant treated the plaintiff unfairly by verbal abuse and assaulting the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff's marital relationship with the plaintiff is extremely difficult to maintain the marital relationship due to the prolonged separation of the plaintiff, it constitutes a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 (3) and (6) of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

1) As to the existence of grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act

It is difficult to readily conclude that only the statement of No. 9 and the family affairs investigator report have been seriously treated by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) As to the existence of grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

"When there is a serious reason why it is difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code" means the case where a marital relationship between the couple's and the couple's communal living relationship, which is equivalent to the essence of the marriage that should be based on difficulties and trust between the couple, has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover and compelling the continuation of the marital life, becomes a cause for which one spouse cannot be able to attend, and

In relation to the existence of intention to continue a marriage, the existence of a party's liability for the cause of failure, the existence of a child, the existence of a child, the age of the party concerned, the livelihood guarantee after divorce, and other circumstances of marriage, shall be taken into consideration equally (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Meu130, May 27, 1994; 2007Meu1690, Dec. 14, 2007, etc.).

In addition, the Defendant expressed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant wishing to maintain a marital life without wanting to obtain divorce from the Plaintiff. In addition, since around 2005 to 13 years, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were living separately from around 2013 years. However, when considering all the circumstances such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s living relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant from around 2013 to around 2013, the Plaintiff provided sick care for the Defendant when the Defendant performed a her husband’s living operation, and found the Defendant’s meals from time to time by 2014, and appears to have maintained the substance of the married life by preparing food after the instant divorce lawsuit was instituted, taking care of the circumstances, such as the circumstance during which the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and the Plaintiff’s attitude, etc., it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s marital relationship was no longer able to recover and forced the Plaintiff to continue the marital life.

3) Sub-decisions

It is difficult to see that there is a cause for judicial divorce as stipulated in Articles 840, 840, 3, and 6 of the Civil Code, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

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

As long as the plaintiff's claim for divorce is rejected, the claim for consolation money and pro rata property on the premise of divorce is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges Cho Jae-sung

Judges Lee E-young