A. Marriage and child relationship: The plaintiff and the defendant completed the marriage report on October 27, 197, and among them, one male and female (the children of 1977 and the children of 1979) are children.

B. The background of marriage and conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant

1) From 2009 to 00 farms run by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff maintained internal relations with Nonparty D for about five months, such as having sexual intercourse with his/her driver C, who was the wife of his/her employee C.

2) The defendant, as a neighbor of the same apartment complex, knew D for a long time. On April 2010, the plaintiff and D knew the same apartment complex, secured evidence, etc. of conversations between the plaintiff and D with each other or of sound recording the sound, etc. of a sexual relationship between the plaintiff and D, and made the defendant's children, fraud, etc., notified D and D's husband C of the name of D and the plaintiff's name, and took a strong responsibility for D's mistake. In that process, the defendant committed acts, such as cutting the head of D's body.

3) After the instant case, the Plaintiff was living separately with the Defendant, and the Defendant disposed of the existing residential apartment in the name of the Defendant around June 2010, and thereafter notified the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff or the director to another place.

4) Around September 2010, the Plaintiff did not talk with her children when she visited the Plaintiff’s 00 farm. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to live a separate life without any specific contact for a long time.

5) Around 2013, D divorced with her husband C, and the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against the Defendant on August 22, 2013.

6) Meanwhile, according to the Plaintiff’s results of inquiry into the details of telephone calls, the Plaintiff appeared to have frequently exchanged telephone calls with D from July 2013 to December 2013. The period of separate telephone calls: from April 2010 to December 2010.

D. Current situation: The Plaintiff consistently sought divorce, and the Defendant is unable to agree to the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce, who is a responsible spouse, and the Plaintiff’s return to home would lead to a smooth marital life.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-4, 2-1-1, Estecom, each inquiry result of Kat, the preparation of investigation report by family investigator, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. The defendant, as a result of the plaintiff's action, systematically inducedd D with D in 2009, accompanied by defects, fraud, etc., and d with wire ropes, reduced her hairs, assaulted them, etc., and prevented the plaintiff from entering the residence where he gets away with his children. After that day, the plaintiff did not respond to several times, and did not arbitrarily dispose of the apartment house, and did not communicate with the director for a long time after leaving the residence. Since the plaintiff and the defendant were under a long-term separate relationship with the defendant since that time, it is difficult to recover any longer because the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has already disappeared, this is asserted that it constitutes a ground for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

1) Whether the marriage has broken down or not

The above facts are acknowledged, including that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a separate state for about four years since the Defendant committed the act, such as taking the Plaintiff’s unlawful act and taking the head scarf, etc., and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant want to get a divorce by disclosing that they did not have any intention to agree with the Defendant at all, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not seem to have made a strong effort for the restoration of relationship by exchanging and exchanging contact during a separate living for a long time during which the Plaintiff and the Defendant were living, and that they did not have made a serious effort for the restoration of relationship. In light of all circumstances known in light of the purport of the report and the entire arguments of the family affairs investigator, the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was no longer recovered.

2) The main responsibility for the failure of the marriage and the cause for the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the main reason for the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, or for the plaintiff's assertion that the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was caused by the same responsibility between the plaintiff and the defendant, are the unilateral statement of the E in a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is difficult to believe it as it is, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, according to the above facts of recognition, the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is caused by the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff is the main responsibility for the failure of the plaintiff within a long time without any specific effort to resolve the conflict between the defendant and the defendant.

3) As a matter of principle, a spouse’s claim for divorce against the failure of the marital life, which is the responsible spouse, is not allowed to file a claim for divorce. However, in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances, such as that, even though it is objectively evident that the other party has no intent to continue the marriage after the failure, the other party is not in compliance with the divorce in misunderstanding or retaliation sentiment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Meu844, Dec. 9, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s statement No. 3, which appears to conform to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant had no intention to marry after the dissolution of marriage, was the unilateral statement of E in a pro rata relationship with the Plaintiff, even though it is objectively obvious that the Defendant had no intention to marry after the dissolution of marriage, is unable to believe it as it is. Next, in the instant case, the Defendant consistently maintained the legal marital relationship with the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff’s return to home, and seeks to recover the relationship, and the Defendant’s behavior, such as the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s failure to engage in any unlawful act, without any specific retaliation, at the location of D’s husband on April 2010, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff continued to engage in any unlawful act, and the Defendant did not have any intention to not engage in any unlawful act any more than retaliation against D and it is objectively acceptable that the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to engage in any unlawful act for 3 years prior to the dissolution of marriage with the Plaintiff and the Defendant without any specific written evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce as the responsible spouse is without merit.

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.