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

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are married couple under the law with two adult children under the chain of a marriage report on August 12, 1996.

B. From around January 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) around 2016, the Plaintiff entered the marriage ceremony concurrently, and (b) gave birth to the Plaintiff during the period of concurrent imposition (the birth on January 25, 2016) and the Defendant’s birth (the birth on January 3, 2018).

C. On October 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Byung for damages against Byung. In the instant lawsuit, Byung stated that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that he/she was the father of his/her father and was accused of the Plaintiff, and that even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant were divorced, he/she did not intend to form a legal marital relationship with the Plaintiff.

D. The Plaintiff submitted a family relation certificate as evidence so that he/she does not appear as his/her children and children.

E. Until April 2018, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount of living expenses equivalent to three million won per month and did not pay it from May 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the plaintiff or his lineal ascendant was extremely maltreated by the defendant, and the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant became extinct, there are grounds for divorce under Article 840, Article 840, Article 3, 4, and 6 of the Civil Code.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act

"When the plaintiff was extremely maltreated by his spouse, who is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act" refers to a case where compelling the continuation of a matrimonial relationship was committed, abused, or insultd (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Meu1890, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.). Even if the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant had taken away from his business place or demanded for living expenses without looking at the plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff had received the above degree of unfair treatment from the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

(2) Determination on the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Act

“When one’s lineal ascendant, which is the reason for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 4 of the Civil Act, has been extremely unfairly treated by the other spouse” refers to a case where the lineal ascendant of the other spouse was abused, abused, or insultd to such an extent that it is deemed that compelling the other spouse to continue the matrimonial relationship from the other spouse. However, it is difficult to find that the statement in the evidence No. 6 alone alone, it is unreasonable to deem that the Defendant had made an unfair treatment to the extent that it is deemed that compelling the other spouse to continue the matrimonial relationship, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code and the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse

According to the above facts, even if the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover, it is reasonable to view that the principal liability for the failure of a marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant lies concurrently in the plaintiff who entered into a mixed de facto marital relationship. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes the claim for divorce of the responsible spouse, and thus, it is not exceptionally permitted

However, in a case where the other party’s spouse has no intention to continue the marriage and there is no possibility of divorce or divorce depending on one’s will, as well as in a case where the other party’s spouse and his/her children have been protected and considered to offset the liability of the other party’s spouse as well as the other party’s spouse’s spouse’s emotional distress at the time of marriage and the other party’s spouse’s emotional distress at the time of the dissolution of marriage, and where there is no special circumstance where the liability for divorce of the other party’s life remains to the extent that the divorce claim should be brought against the other party’s spouse, such as in a case where the other party’s spouse’s loss at the time of the dissolution of marriage and the other spouse’s emotional distress are gradually weakened, it may be exceptionally allowed to file a divorce claim with the responsible spouse (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Meu568, Sept. 15, 2015). Therefore, we examine whether there are special circumstances allowing the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce.

○ First, the Defendant does not want to proceed to divorce with the Plaintiff by expressing his wish to maintain the marital relationship with the Plaintiff in this case. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, around around 2016, the agreement between the Defendant was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the division of property by assisting the Defendant to purchase the apartment under the name of the Defendant, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that the agreement on the division of property was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on around 2016, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was a mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the division of property. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not want to proceed to divorce with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on account of the Defendant’s unlawful act against Byung was made only by misstatements or retaliation, but it was difficult to view that the Defendant had objectively been aware of the Plaintiff’s unlawful act during the period of divorce with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the claim for damages.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier, namely, that is, the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant’s living expenses from May 2018. In addition to the fact that: (a) sufficient protection and consideration for the Defendant and their children have been given to the extent of offsetting the Plaintiff’s liability; and (b) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s claim for damages against Byung still continues to exist, and that the Defendant’s mental suffering has gradually deteriorated, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff that the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse existed exceptionally; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.