2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant reported their marriage on April 4, 1988, and they had A and B as their children.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant worked as a bank source prior to marriage, and the Defendant retired from office around February 1998 after marriage.

C. The Plaintiff borrowed money from the money deposited in a deposit after marriage without the Defendant’s name and the bank. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not receive the money, and they did not pay approximately KRW 100 million in total, around August 2001. The Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently disputed this issue. Since August 1996, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in an unfair relationship with the Defendant, and on December 4, 2000, the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s misconduct, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant were able to go home on June 4, 2001 while demanding divorce while staying abroad. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are separate from each other.

D. On October 15, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce against the Defendant at the Busan District Court’s home branch. On September 27, 2002, the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce on the ground that the Plaintiff was the responsible spouse. The Plaintiff filed an appeal but withdrawn the appeal, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 22, 2003.

E. During his stay, the Defendant: (a) was married children or children in order to directly receive the Plaintiff’s living expenses, and visited the Plaintiff’s workplace; (b) until he retires on June 2015, the Defendant paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 1.5 million per month to the Defendant as the cost of living.

F. On March 7, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a letter to A requesting documents necessary for individual rehabilitation procedures. A sent a letter to the effect that it is not possible for A to communicate only when necessary. On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendant requesting a divorce and filing a divorce lawsuit. On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendant requesting documents necessary for individual rehabilitation procedures.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 7, Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the whole purport of pleading

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For more than 17 years, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were living separately to completely resolve the substance of marriage, and their children also become adults, and the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation to rear their children, and the Plaintiff was 2015.

6. After retirement, the plaintiff did not contact with the defendant and the defendant. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances in which the plaintiff contact the defendant and his/her children to receive documents necessary for the application for individual rehabilitation on March 2018, the defendant is solely engaged in maintaining the marital relationship due to the economic reason, clerical error and retaliation, and there is no intention to continue the marital relationship. Therefore, the plaintiff has a serious reason that it is difficult to continue the marriage with the defendant (Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act).

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce on the ground that the Plaintiff was a responsible spouse. From June 4, 2001, before the aforementioned lawsuit was brought, from around June 4, 2001, the Plaintiff was living separately and the Defendant was living until now. After his retirement on June 2015, whether the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce can be accepted based on these circumstances, and whether the Defendant opposed to the divorce due to the Plaintiff’s emotional distress and retaliation. (The Plaintiff asserted that during his separate period, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff at each Plaintiff’s work and asked for money, and forced the Plaintiff to stop contact with the Plaintiff, and interfere with the Plaintiff’s proper social life, and it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is alleged as grounds for divorce. In view of the fact that the Defendant’s demand for living expenses cannot be viewed as an unfair act of the Plaintiff, which is a legal spouse, and that the Defendant cannot be viewed as forcing the Plaintiff to contact the Plaintiff and his child by verbal abuse, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce cannot be justified.

In principle, a spouse who is mainly responsible for the failure of the marital life may not file a claim for divorce on the ground of the failure of the spouse: Provided, That in cases where the other spouse has no intention to continue the marriage and there is no concern about divorce or divorce by one’s will, as well as where there is no concern about divorce or divorce by one’s will, protection and consideration for the other spouse and children is given to the extent that the liability of the other spouse for divorce is offset, or where the liability of the responsible spouse which was significant at the time of the dissolution of marriage due to the lapse of the third month and the mental suffering of the other spouse is gradually weakened, and where there are special circumstances that do not remain enough to reject the claim for divorce, such as in a case where the liability for the failure of the marital life is not maintained, an exceptional claim for divorce by the liable spouse may be allowed, such as the degree of liability of the other spouse, the other spouse’s intention and emotional ability to continue the marriage, the assessment of the parties, the age of the other spouse, the period of marriage and the other spouse’s mental condition after the marriage and the other circumstances.

In the instant case, even though the Defendant refused a request for issuance of documents necessary for the Plaintiff’s individual rehabilitation procedure, it cannot be determined that the Defendant has no intention to continue marriage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not have any intention to continue marriage. Moreover, the Plaintiff appears to have seriously killed and did not seek a letter of intent to continue marriage. The amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant during a separate period is insufficient to cover the living expenses of the Defendant and his/her children; the Plaintiff did not regularly pay the said money; and the Defendant’s visit the Plaintiff’s workplace due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the money; and the Defendant and his/her children are suffering from the economic and emotionalless acts after the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from home and after his/her emotional responsibility until now, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce, which is a spouse, to the extent that it would offset the Plaintiff’s liability. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce.

C. Sub-committee

There is no exceptional reason to accept the plaintiff's claim for divorce, which is a responsible spouse, and it is difficult to recognize the defendant as a responsible spouse. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.