Seoul 00

Permanent address Seoul 00

Attorney Lee In-bok et al.

Address and permanent domicile of the plaintiff are same as the plaintiff.

Attorney Yellow-gu et al.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

A. On November 6, 1984, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the mother of the Plaintiff’s mother and the Defendant’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s husband and wife’s father’s mother’s mother’s mother’

B. From 1983 to 1984, the Plaintiff worked for about one year and six months at the Defendant’s mother’s recommendation, and worked for about four years as the head of a department at the 00 package (State) where the Defendant’s mother was in the same business with another person. From March 19, 1989, the Plaintiff was in the private high school with the help of the Plaintiff’s mother and entered the private high school as a science teacher up to the present time. On February 2006, the Plaintiff was in charge of managing his monthly salary to the Defendant, and used approximately 1/3 of the monthly salary as his own money. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered the apartment where the Defendant’s mother resided from the beginning of marriage to the Defendant’s mother living together with the Defendant’s mother living bond from 1989 to the Defendant’s mother did not always look at the Plaintiff’s right of birth in terms of the nature and value of the Plaintiff’s mother’s ability to gather together with the Defendant’s right of birth, etc.

D. From around 1989, the Plaintiff and the Defendant proposed a divorce to the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the proposal of the Defendant, were living separately for about seven months, and only three persons, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, were living separately until 1997, and only three persons, including the Defendant and the Defendant, were living separately. From around 198, it was difficult to have the Defendant’s mother and the Defendant’s mother living together.

E. In such a life, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not take a serious dispute as they do, due to lack of understanding and concession between the other parties. The Plaintiff started to dispute with the Defendant at all times, i.e., finites that they always listen to three finites, i.e., that they always listen to only finites about the Plaintiff’s horses without hearing the Plaintiff’s horses, that the Defendant did not want to oppose the Plaintiff, and that he did not request the Plaintiff to attend on the day of the Defendant’s mother, and that he did not respond to the Plaintiff’s request to the Plaintiff to attend on the day of the Defendant’s father’s mother, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to see that it was too difficult for the Defendant to do so. The Defendant left the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff was present at the side branch, and then the Defendant suggested that he was living well in the middle school until he did so.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, as well as the people, was able to be able to enter the usual campaign and enter the school with the executive members at the Nicedong conference, and had them go home late after his retirement, while the Plaintiff did not have a horse inside the house and did not seem to have a lot of interest in the family company and children’s educational issues. However, the Defendant did not present the Plaintiff’s complaint against the said part, if he so to avoid a dispute with the Plaintiff.

G. At the beginning of 2001, any woman claiming that the plaintiff was unable to meet the plaintiff or the plaintiff's son at his home or the plaintiff's work, and such day was continued until the beginning of 2002. At the time, the defendant, disregarding her son's son and showing that her son did not change to the plaintiff, was eventually completed.

H. Since long years thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to drink the Plaintiff’s alcohol again and went home late. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, who impliedly followed the Plaintiff’s action, led to a relatively weak marital life, such as: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant, along with both five members of the Exemplary Teachers’ Department at School around May, 2002; (b) the two two members of the Enice Family Association at the time of August 2002; and (c) the two members of the Enice Family Association at the time of January 204, as well as the seven two members of the Enice Family Association at the time of travel to Chinese injury.

I. From November 2005, when the plaintiff entered the new wall, female cosmetics frequently buried in the clothes, change the password of the mobile phone, avoid the locked with the defendant, and saves or laund, and there was a fact that the same female pictures from the wall were discovered on two occasions in the wall. However, the defendant started to doubt the plaintiff's female relationship with the plaintiff's defect, such as that he was saved with the food in the workplace, and that he was saved with the food in the workplace, or that he was saved with the saves of women who do not know at some convenience points, or that he was saved with the food in the face of the plaintiff, and that he was saved with the horse in the face of the plaintiff.

B. On January 26, 2006, the Defendant: (a) talked about the Plaintiff’s behavior to the so-called “profescing group; and (b) 3:00 p.m. on January 26, 2006, the Defendant appeared to have a witness to drive any woman on a car at his own government; and (c) thereafter, the Plaintiff appeared to go to the Plaintiff while driving the Plaintiff through another person; and (d) the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to go to the fescing group.

(k) After that, the Plaintiff demanded divorce from the Defendant every night since he was not present at the Defendant’s mother’s her arms spawn, and subsequently, the Plaintiff spawn the Defendant’s spawn and spawn the view on the ground that the Defendant did not comply with this request. The Plaintiff spawn the Defendant’s spawn and spawn the Defendant’s spawn at the time when she spawn the Defendant’s spawn, and the Defendant’s mawn and children

C. In addition, in February 2006, the Plaintiff began to manage the monthly wage and suspended the use of the credit card and mobile phone used by the Defendant while changing the account at the end of February 2006. The Plaintiff was also demanding a divorce by selling and selling the apartment house in the name of the Plaintiff residing in the Defendant at the time.

(m) On March 1, 2006, the Defendant heard that the Plaintiff, on his own initiative, could not sell his house and obtain a loan, requested a registration document and a seal imprint, consulted to find it in the defective law office. At the same time, the Defendant would not proceed to divorce together with the statement that there is a tendency to dispose of the real estate possessed by a male who requested a divorce but refuses a divorce, he would not be able to dispose of his house in the mind of the male by filing a lawsuit for provisional disposition and registration of transfer of 1/2 shares and make it impossible for the Defendant to dispose of his house in the manner of the male mind, and on March 16, 2006.

Of the above real estate, 1/2 of the above real estate shares are one's own shares, and the name of the plaintiff is entrusted to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the lawsuit for the registration of transfer was filed.

n. On March 19, 2006, the plaintiff met with the family members of the defendant and the family members of both families, or entered into the issue of the plaintiff and the defendant. On April 4, 2006, the plaintiff, from the defendant's mother's mother's mother, he was aware that the plaintiff could not live in the above lawsuit for the registration of the transfer transfer, together with the words that the plaintiff had sold the apartment, and that he could no longer live in the above lawsuit with the defendant, and that he started to live in the Sewol ferry located in the Namyang-do Nam-do.

(o) After that, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming consolation money of KRW 50 million with the Defendant on April 25, 2006, when it was delivered to the Defendant’s relative Kim-○, working for the same school, and the letter requesting the Plaintiff to return home from the Defendant.

(p) Even after the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not inform the Defendant of his residence, and refused to return to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s mother refused to return to the Plaintiff’s school on July 25, 2006, along with the Defendant’s mother, who did not seem to have been restored as well as the Defendant’s mother, but the Plaintiff refused to return to the Plaintiff on July 25, 2006. However, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s refusal to return to the school on the same date as the Plaintiff was in the Plaintiff’s child, and the Plaintiff would have to retire from the school when the school was found by the principal of the school. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was aware that the principal of the school would have to return to the school if he was aware that he would have to retire from the school.

In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff still remains separate from the Defendant, while going through the investigation procedure by family affairs investigators and the conciliation procedure by this court, and the Plaintiff does not want to stay together with the Defendant and have the intention of divorce for the reason that he could live outside the Defendant’s office. The Defendant cannot be able to win a mixed life, and the Plaintiff is expected to have his mind and return to his mind on the ground that it is necessary for the Defendant’s mother and children.

[Based on Recognition] 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, 4, 7, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 20-1, Eul evidence 20-2, Eul evidence 21-1, Eul evidence 21-2, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 8, 9, Eul evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul's domestic investigation report, the purport of the whole oral argument, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7-1, part of Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul's contents of the investigation report, the purport of the whole oral argument.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money

A. Whether the marital failure has occurred

Therefore, as to whether the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has broken down, according to the above facts, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming share transfer registration on the apartment in the name of the plaintiff, based on the cancellation of title trust, and the plaintiff started the house on that day with the knowledge of the fact that the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming share transfer registration on the ground of the cancellation of title trust, and again, the defendant was living together with the defendant, concealed his domicile, refused to have telephone conversations with the defendant, and refused to complete the continuation of the marital life with the defendant until the closing of the argument in this case, and the separate period is more than 1 year and 2 months. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that

However, the plaintiff asserts that there is a ground for the dissolution of marriage by asserting that there is the defendant as follows.

B. The plaintiff's assertion

피고는, ① 혼인기간 내내 시어머니 제사에 불참하는 등 시댁에 소홀히 하면서도 처가의 행사에는 빠지지 않으면서 피고의 가끔 있는 불참에 불만을 나타내 왔고, 자녀들 학교선택을 비롯한 집안 대소사도 원고를 소외시킨 채 장모, 처이모와 결정한 뒤 원고에게는 사후 통보만 하였으며, ② 혼인 초부터 의부증적 증세를 보이면서 원고의 휴대전화기나 지갑을 뒤지고 본인 혹은 친구를 통하여 수시로 원고가 근무하는 학교에 전화하여 원고의 소재를 확인하곤 하다가, 2001년경에는 정신이 이상한 여자로부터 전화가 온 것을 빌미로 원고의 여자관계를 의심하고, 회식자리에서 원고의 옷에 묻은 립 스틱자국을 며칠 동안 걸어두면서 원고의 여자관계를 의심하더니, 급기야 2006년에 들어서는 친구와 함께 차로 원고를 미행하고, 흥신소를 통하여 원고를 미행하는 등 심각한 의부증적 증세를 보였으며, ③ 처가 식구들과 함께 수시로 자신들 때문에 원고가 교사생활을 하고 있고, 자신들이 마음만 먹으면 원고가 해고될 수 있다는 말을 하다가 , 이 사건 소 제기 이후에는 원고가 근무하는 학교를 찾아와 교장선생님 등에게 " 원고에게 여자가 있다 " 는 말을 하여 원고가 직장생활을 하기 어렵게 만들었고, ④ 20년 이상 원고의 수입을 관리하여 왔음에도 원고 소유의 아파트를 차지할 욕심으로 사전에 아무런 말도 하지 않은 채 위 아파트에 관하여 지분 이전등기청구소송을 제기하는 등 원고와 피고 사이의 신뢰를 깨는 행위를 하였는바, ⑤ 이처럼 피고의 원고에 대한 부당한 대우 등이 원인이 되어 원고와 피고의 혼인관계가 파탄상태에 이르렀고, 원고가 집을 나온 뒤에도 전혀 원고에게 신경을 쓰지 않았음에도, 오직 혼인이라는 호적을 지킬 의도로 원고에게 쓴 편지를 복사하여 두고 원고가 일부러 넣어 둔 여자사진을 몰래 복사하여 놓은 뒤 소송에 이용하는 등, 실질적으로는 혼인생활을 계속할 의사가 없이 이혼을 거부하고 있다. 따라서 원고의 이 사건 청구는 인용되어야 한다 .

C. According to the judgment on the plaintiff's argument (1) (1) according to the above facts, the defendant made a heavy burden on the plaintiff by attending a large number of events, such as the defendant's mother and mother, in particular close to the defendant's father's sexual intercourses, and attending a large number of events. The plaintiff did not have to attend, except where it is inevitable for the plaintiff to live together with the defendant's mother's mother, or his wife or his wife's other spouse, while continuing such a life, there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to whether he participated in the opposite event, and that it was partly affected by the failure of the current plaintiff and the defendant's marriage. However, on the other hand, since the defendant has a dispute and conflict with the plaintiff several times, and the defendant has an adverse effect on the marriage relationship with the plaintiff, it is difficult to view that these circumstances have caused the failure of the plaintiff's marriage and the defendant's main cause.

In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, it may be known that the defendant has expressed more emphasis on the intent of relatives, such as the Plaintiff’s mother or mother, than the Plaintiff’s intent in determining the substitute of the house. However, there is no evidence to deem that the decision completely excluded the Plaintiff from the decision and only made a notification after the fact. Therefore, such circumstance is difficult to be deemed as the main cause of failure.

한편 갑 제18호증 내지 갑 제23호증의 각 일부 기재에 의하면, 피고가 원고의 본가가 있는 대구에서 지내는 시어머니의 제사에 혼인 후 전혀 참석하지 않았고 최근 몇 년간은 명절에도 시댁을 방문하지 않은 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 피고는 시어머니 제사에 참석하지 않는 것으로 원고와 이야기가 되어 불참한 것이고, 아들인 한기범이 4년에 걸쳐 대입을 준비하는 바람에 최근 몇 년간 명절에 시댁에 가지 못했지만 선물을 빠짐없이 챙겨 보냈다고 주장하고 있는 반면에, 피고의 시어머니 제사에 대한 불참이나 시댁에의 소홀이 원인이 되어 원고와 피고 사이에 커다란 다툼이 있었다고 볼 자료가 없는 점을 고려하면, 위와 같은 피고의 시댁에 대한 태도가 바람직한 것은 아니라고 할지라도 나아가 혼인관계 파탄의 주된 원인이 되었다고 보기는 어렵다 . ( 2 ) 원고의 ②주장에 관하여 먼저 피고가 수시로 자신 스스로 또는 친구를 통하여 원고가 근무하는 학교에 전화를 걸어 원고의 소재를 확인하여 왔는지에 관하여 보건대, 이에 관하여 피고는 휴대전화기 통화료를 절약하기 위하여 원고가 학교에 있다고 할 때에는 휴대전화 통화를 끊고 일반전화로 학교에 전화하여 원고와 통화를 하곤 하였다고 주장하고 있는바, 이러한 피고의 해명이 납득할 수 없는 변명이라고 보기 어렵고 달리 원고의 주장처럼 피고가 수시로 학교에 전화를 걸어 원고의 행방을 파악하였다고 볼 자료도 없는 점, 또한 을 제15호증의 1의 기재에 의하여 인정되는 것처럼, 피고의 친구 김정숙은 청운중 학교에 전화를 걸려다가 전화기를 잘못 작동하여 원고가 근무하는 학교에 전화를 걸었고 당시 평소 알고 지내던 원고와 통화하게 되자 짧지 않은 시간 동안 통화한 사실이 있을 뿐인 점, 달리 원고의 주장처럼 피고가 친구를 통하여 원고의 행방을 파악하기 위하여 자주 원고가 근무하는 학교에 전화를 걸었다고 볼 자료도 없는 점 등을 고려하면 이와 관련된 원고의 주장을 받아들일 수는 없다 .

Next, according to the above facts, it was difficult for a woman who became aware of the plaintiff while boarding the test around early 2001, to find out whether the defendant was guilty of the plaintiff's female relationship with the plaintiff or the defendant by borrowing from a woman with a mental disorder around 2001.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant alleged that there was a threat of phone calls from the plaintiff or the defendant, and in such a situation, the defendant knew that the day was terminated without doubt by the plaintiff, with the attitude that does not differ from that of the plaintiff, and that there was a problem between the plaintiff and the defendant by the document (No. 1-2) prepared by the plaintiff. (The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff prepared No. 1-1 and No. 2 of No. 1-2 as the defendant left, but the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted if it is considered in light of its contents) Therefore, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act was doubtful of the plaintiff's female relationship by borrowing a phone from any woman with a mental disorder, such as the plaintiff's assertion, and even if the defendant was suspected of the plaintiff's female relationship after that day, it is difficult to view that the above behavior of the defendant was due to an incidental increase in premiums beyond normal conditions.

Then, according to the above facts of recognition, since November 2005, when the plaintiff frequently entered the new wall, there was a deficit that female cosmetics were buried in the clothes, changed the password of the mobile phone, and avoided the defendant's locked, and there was a fact that the same female photographs were discovered twice in the wall. However, although the plaintiff's name was shotly found in the workplace, it is difficult in light of the empirical rule to understand that the plaintiff's photograph was put in part of a woman's behavior during the convenience store or was put in part of the plaintiff's behavior, etc., and that it cannot be seen that the defendant did not know about the fact that the defendant did not have any further opinion on the grounds that the defendant's son and the defendant did not know about the fact that he did not have any more than the defendant's son's marriage.

(3) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's principal's office (3) as to whether the defendant's wife is living together with the food tools from time to time, and whether the plaintiff's wife's office and the plaintiff's office speaks that the plaintiff can be dismissed if he knows that the defendant's office can be dismissed.

Then, after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case, the defendant found the school where he works for the plaintiff and the principal of the school, etc. "if the plaintiff made it difficult for the plaintiff to live in the plaintiff's workplace, and caused the failure, the plaintiff raised the lawsuit in this case, and refused to use telephone conversations or delivery with the defendant without informing the defendant of his residence. The plaintiff's mother who was aware of this situation was found in the school where the plaintiff's mother was working for the plaintiff to know the plaintiff, and the plaintiff refused to use the plaintiff's mobile phone in this case. The plaintiff did not request the plaintiff to exchange or request the plaintiff to deliver a warning message from the principal of the school, and after that, the plaintiff did not appear to have caused the plaintiff's refusal to use the plaintiff's mobile phone in this case (the plaintiff's mother's act was an apartment as the day between the plaintiff and the defendant, or the plaintiff's act was caused by the plaintiff's refusal to use the plaintiff's mobile phone in this case's name. It is not clear that the plaintiff's behavior and the defendant's act did not cause.

(5) As to Plaintiff’s assertion (5)

According to the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2-1 and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 3-2, the defendant's pictures discovered in the plaintiff's branch, such as the plaintiff's assertion, or a letter that the plaintiff left the home and sent to the plaintiff, and thus, can be acknowledged as evidence in the lawsuit of this case. However, even though the plaintiff had engaged in doubtful conduct as to women's relations, if the plaintiff's previous actions are not good, it is merely using the defense means to respond to the plaintiff's divorce claim which might be harshly harsh from the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant cannot be viewed as refusing divorce without the plaintiff's intention to continue the marital life.

In addition, the plaintiff's assertion that there is lack of genuine intention to marry to the defendant is admitted as evidence of evidence of Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 15, Gap evidence Nos. 24 and 25, but it is not enough to accept the plaintiff's assertion.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, as seen earlier, the behavior and attitude of the defendant can be deemed to have influenced the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, the failure of the marriage between the defendant and the defendant's primary responsibility cannot be deemed to have been caused as the plaintiff claims.

Since the marriage around 1984, both the plaintiff and the defendant showed the appearance that is not dangerous or original from time to time due to various reasons that are responsible for both parties, such as mutual character, values, and large differences in life and personality for about 20 years since they were married, lack of understanding of both parties' wife and position, lack of concession to both parties, conflict, poverty in endeavoring to overcome and overcome conflicts, etc., while the plaintiff appeared in November 2005, the plaintiff's life attitude that makes it possible for them to misjudgment or misunderstanding the plaintiff's late and late home, carrying female photographs, changes in the password of cellular phone, and avoidance of relationship with the defendant, etc. The plaintiff's attitude that did not properly unfortunate and unfortunate the defendant's suspicion and apprehension, the defendant's unfortunateness and attitude that did not properly unfortunate the defendant's situation, the defendant's unfortunateed situation with the defendant's unfortunateing situation, and the reason for divorce by failing to properly understand the cause of violence.

It can be seen that a series of actions of the plaintiff who refused to communicate with the defendant, without notifying the defendant of his/her residence, immediately leaving the place of a marriage by leaving the place of a petition for registration as soon as he/she is in danger of the marriage, and later without informing the defendant of his/her domicile.

In addition, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, even though the defendant consented to divorce with the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not respond to the plaintiff's claim for divorce in writing or retaliation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case and the claim for consolation money premised on this claim are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.