Busan Address

Busan District Court

Attorney Lee Do-young

(B) C. (F., 1974)

Busan Address

Busan District Court

Busan Address

Busan District Court

2. B

Busan Address

Busan District Court

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Designation.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant reported marriage * January 1, 2003 *, and they reported marriage *, and they had the principals of this case as their children.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently asserted from the beginning of marriage the difference between nature and method of dialogue, the amount of living expenses, and the Plaintiff’s complaint against the Defendant’s family affairs.

C. After the Defendant gave birth to the principal of this case on February 2008, the Plaintiff was locked with the principal of this case in another room, and the Plaintiff was used separately from the principal of this case.

D. The Plaintiff retired from office in around 2013, and opened a car page around 2014, and the Defendant separately paid KRW 200,000 to the Defendant in addition to management expenses, insurance premiums, electricity charges, and automobile-related expenses. A. The Defendant did not pay the living expenses from spring on September 2016. The Defendant was deemed to lack of living expenses to be paid from the Plaintiff, and was employed as a nurse around September 2015. On the other hand, the Plaintiff goes to work between 11:0 p.m. and 12:0 p.m., and the Defendant was retired from office at 4:0 p.m. after completion of preparation for school meals and children at 6:0 a.m., and the time was written when a conversation can be divided by facing each other.

E. The Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her own in order to understand the source of the loan that exceeds KRW 200 million, and the Plaintiff her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her more her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

F. The Plaintiff sent time to the Defendant’s interview at night with the Kafin personnel and the Defendant’s interview at late night, and seen or took meals. A female employee used a car purchased in the name of the Plaintiff. The Defendant reported the notice of a fine for negligence issued at home and became aware of the fact.

G. Around the end of February 2016, the Plaintiff demanded a divorce with the Defendant, while making a lease of an apartment under the Plaintiff’s name, and given the property division of KRW 150 million out of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis. The Defendant decided to receive the property division amount in order to prevent the Plaintiff from being wasted with the business funds, and received KRW 150 million out of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis until February 2, 2017. The Defendant used the said money as the deposit for the house lease with a new director.

H. The Plaintiff and the Defendant submitted a written application for confirmation of intention of divorce to consult with the court, but the Defendant left the space of audio-visual education, and did not cooperate in the procedure of divorce thereafter, and thus did not reach a divorce.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 9, family fact-finding report by family fact-finding officer, whole purport of oral argument

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s thoughts and nature and the difference between the method of law was frequent due to frequent disputes during the marriage period. In addition, the Defendant refused to locked with the Plaintiff prior to 2005. From around 2008, the Plaintiff refused to exchange with the Plaintiff and remains in a state where dialogue is severed and there is no exchange since she separately used her room. The Defendant demanded excessive living expenses. The Defendant was employed solely for punishing her own money, and was neglected due to her employment, and neglected her family affairs and childcare. The Defendant doubtful and her relationship with the Plaintiff’s operating carpets. The Defendant provided several occasions of divorce and division of her division of property, and paid KRW 150 million inevitably to the Defendant and the division of her division of her property. The Plaintiff was unable to continue marriage with the Defendant due to the Defendant’s unfair act against the Plaintiff, malicious abandonment, etc., and thus, the Defendant refused to receive separate living expenses from the Plaintiff and her her her son’s her husband.

B. Determination

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant were frequently disputed from the beginning of marriage due to the difference between nature and the method of conversation, but they maintained their marriage life for more than 10 years after marriage, with two children given birth and raising up, and maintaining their marriage life for more than 10 years. Since disputes arising from the difference between nature and the method of conversation have not been frequent or too frequent, it is not recognized that the marriage was broken down to the extent that it is difficult to maintain the marriage due to the difference between nature and the method of dialogue, etc.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant unfairly refused to work for the Plaintiff. (A family investigator’s investigation report shows that the Plaintiff refused the Defendant’s sexual relations once from the Defendant’s refusal, and refused to demand the Defendant to engage in sexual relations at multiple trials, and that the Defendant was no longer required to engage in sexual relations. From around 2008 to the Plaintiff, it is deemed that the Defendant’s employment itself is an inappropriate abandonment or unfair treatment of the Plaintiff, even if there is lack of dialogue and exchanges after the Defendant was employed as a nurse due to different working hours. Considering the amount of living expenses paid by the Plaintiff or current revenues, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant paid excessive living expenses to the Plaintiff in light of the amount of the Plaintiff’s living expenses or the current revenues, and considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff did not pay living expenses from the spring of 2016, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed any error regarding the reduction of the Plaintiff’s employment dialogue and exchanges between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s spouse, who purchased the Plaintiff’s children and the Defendant’s children. Rather, the Plaintiff’s relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s children and the Defendant’s children.

Although it is inappropriate for the Defendant to receive KRW 150,00,00 from the Plaintiff as a division of property by agreement, it is difficult to conclude that the agreement has been terminated due to an act of failing to comply with the agreement agreement, unlike the agreement, even though the agreement has been decided to divorce, it is difficult to deem that the agreement has been terminated due to the act of failing to comply with the agreement. Furthermore, the Defendant first demanded the Plaintiff’s division of property, provided the Plaintiff’s advice to prevent the Plaintiff from consuming property with business funds, and provided the Plaintiff’s repayment of money to prevent the Plaintiff’s consumption of property with business funds. Considering the circumstances where the Plaintiff used the pre-paid deposit in his residence to reside with the instant principal and did not waste the money received from the Plaintiff, it is also difficult to view that the Defendant’s receipt of property division by promising the Plaintiff to cooperate in the agreement, and then failing to comply with the agreement is a act of destroying new trust to the extent that it is difficult to maintain

(2) In other words, it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff’s ground for liability, such as unfair treatment and bad faith abandonment against the Plaintiff asserted by the Plaintiff, and rather, the Plaintiff’s fault is much more than the Plaintiff’s fault regarding the aggravation of marital relationship and the aggravation of marital relationship as the Plaintiff’s demand for divorce was much more recognized. In light of the circumstances where the Defendant did not receive living expenses from the Plaintiff from spring on January 2016 and lived as the Defendant’s salary, the Defendant’s refusal of divorce for the purpose of economic assistance of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

As the plaintiff's claim for divorce is rejected, the remaining claims premised on divorce by the plaintiff and the defendant are without merit without examining further claims.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.