Busan Address

Busan place of service

Reference domicile Chungcheongbuk

Attorney Lee Do-young

Busan Address

Reference domicile Chungcheongbuk

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. MD (********* 4*********))

The address of the case principal Busan

The principal's place of registration is Chungcheongbuk

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

A. On June 14, 2001, the plaintiff and the defendant had the main text of the case between the two legal couple who completed the marriage report.

B. The plaintiff and the defendant were aware of the church and they were married, and they were married. The plaintiff was on duty as nursing assistant, while serving as a nursing assistant, and the defendant completed a new school to become a previous member of a church while going to work as a new school to become a new member of a church, but in opposition of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has given up the way of a member of a church and has been living in a general workplace.

C. The Plaintiff was present at a church other than the Defendant with the result of recovery from the fact that the remaining birth of her natives was in a state of divorce, and became in conflict with the Defendant.

D. The Defendant, while living together with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s house, took care of the instant principal and took household affairs, but, since 2013, took care of the principal of this case separately.

E. On November 2014, the Plaintiff brought an action for divorce in the instant case while living separately with the Defendant, who established a conflict with the Plaintiff and raised the paths of a member of the Council, etc., and the Defendant did not want to divorce.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including each number), family investigation report prepared by family investigation officers, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's unfair treatment and conflict between the defendant's in-depth trial and the defendant's in-depth trial, and the defendant's opposition to the plaintiff's opposition, making a house around November 2014 and so far. The defendant's mistake as above led to the failure to recover the plaintiff's and the defendant's marriage to the extent that it no longer can be recovered.

B. Determination

1) Whether there are grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act

Article 840 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides that a spouse who is a reason for divorce or his or her lineal ascendant is extremely maltreated by a person who is subject to violence, abuse, or insult to the extent that it may be considered harsh by reference to force the continuation of the marriage relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Meu1890, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.).

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was extremely maltreated by the spouse or his/her lineal ascendant to the extent that it would have been regarded as harshly unfair, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2) Whether there exists grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act

A) "When there is a serious fault that makes it difficult to continue a marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act" means a case where the marital relationship between the couple's communal living relationship corresponding to the essence of the marriage renders it impossible to recover, and enforcing the continuation of the marital life renders it impossible for one spouse to attend. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue the marriage, the existence of intention to continue the marriage, the existence of the party's liability for the source of the failure, the period of marital life, the existence of children, the age of the party concerned, the guarantee of livelihood after the divorce, and other circumstances of the marital relationship shall be taken into consideration, and it shall be recognized that the marital relationship of the couple was broken down to the extent that the marital relationship of the couple cannot be complied with (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1067 delivered on July 9, 191, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was broken down due to the Defendant’s responsible reason, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence.

① The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to live together with the Defendant due to economic difficulties and the need for a rearing assistant of the instant principal. The Plaintiff, even if the Defendant proposed a branch of a family in order to resolve the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, did not consent thereto due to economic problems, etc.

② It seems that there was some conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, such as stress due to the depression or the Defendant’s decision on the Defendant’s ad hoc course. However, marriage is a combination which is justified moral and morally and objectively for the purpose of living a daily life on the basis of the difficulties of both men and women, and is obligated to live together with, and cooperate with each other. Thus, in the course of married life, married couple shall make their best efforts to maintain their marital life by understanding and protecting the other party with pether, good faith, and personality. Even if there are many circumstances impeding the marriage life, they shall make every effort to overcome such trouble (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Meu612, Feb. 12, 199). Since some conflict existed, it is difficult to deem that there is a serious reason to continue marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

③ It is true that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have been living separately for not less than one year until now, but such separate status began on the ground that the Plaintiff did not live as a member of the Council, and it is difficult to confirm that the Plaintiff’s act was caused by the Defendant’s unfair treatment, etc. as seen earlier.

④ Since the filing of the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiff, the Defendant brought up the instant principal, and the instant principal talks that the Plaintiff would have been subject to divorce by phone calls to the school and would have been divorced to his parents. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was in a state of mind, the instant principal appears not to have been subject to parents divorce.

⑤ The Defendant stated that even if considering the principal of the instant case in the process of pleading or consultation, divorce is not sought.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money of this case is without merit.

3. Designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian, or a claim for child support;

As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is dismissed, the Plaintiff’s person with parental authority and branch of custody, and the claim for child support are without merit.

4. Determination as to the claim for division of property

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is without merit, it is without merit to examine the claim for division of property premised on divorce.

5. Conclusion

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