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

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on December 14, 2009, and have the case principal who is a minor under the chain.

B. Around May 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant asked for a divorce against the Defendant without returning home from that time to that time; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant consistently expressed an objection to divorce.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant received counseling at least 11 times in accordance with the instant court’s order to take measures for conciliation. Even after the procedures for counseling, the Plaintiff is seeking divorce, but the Defendant wishes to maintain the marital relationship.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including the number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply), family affairs investigator's conciliation action report, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lineal ascendant was extremely maltreated by the defendant, and the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has broken down, there are grounds for judicial divorce under Article 840, Article 840, Article 3, 4, and 6 of the Civil Code.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act

According to each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, the defendant's mistake of abusive language and abusive language, etc. is acknowledged as having been committed against the plaintiff, but "if the defendant was extremely maltreated by his spouse, the reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act" refers to the case where the defendant was abused, abused, or insultd to the extent that it would be regarded as harsh by force to continue the marriage relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Meu1890, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.). The above fact of recognition alone cannot be deemed as having been treated by the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff was unfairly treated by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is rejected.

“When one’s lineal ascendant, which is the reason for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 4 of the Civil Act, has been extremely maltreated by the other spouse” refers to a case where the lineal ascendant of the other spouse is subject to violence, abuse, or insult to such an extent that it is deemed harsh that it would compel the other spouse to continue the marriage relationship from the other spouse. However, it is difficult to find that the entries in the evidence No. 5 and No. 6 alone, in itself, are sufficient to recognize that the Defendant had treated the Plaintiff’s lineal ascendant to the extent that it would be harsh to force the other spouse to continue the marriage relationship, and there is no other evidence to support this portion of the Plaintiff’

(2) Determination on the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act

"When there is a serious reason to make it difficult to continue a marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act" means the case where the marital relationship corresponding to the essence of the marriage that should be based on difficulties and trust between the married couple has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover and compelling the continuation of the marital life has become an unreceptable pain for one spouse. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue a marriage, the existence of a party's liability for a cause of failure of marriage, the period of marital life, the existence of children, the party's age, the guarantee of livelihood after divorce, and other circumstances of marriage shall be taken into consideration (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Meu2413, Dec. 24, 2009).

The Plaintiff and the Defendant were living separately from May 2017, and have established firm facts without a change in the Plaintiff’s intention of divorce as seen earlier. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Defendant’s family affairs investigator’s family investigation report and mediation measures, and the overall purport of pleadings, i.e., there were several conflicts between the Plaintiff and the Defendant up to the time before the Plaintiff going to go to home. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff was living together at the same house and carried out daily life by performing the role of parents of the principal of the case. Although the Plaintiff was unaware of and had a strong objection against the Plaintiff, it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff was unable to understand the Plaintiff’s efforts to have understood the Plaintiff, and that there was no possibility of any change in the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s family without any change in the opportunity to recover the Plaintiff’s previous lawsuit and to recover the Plaintiff’s family without any change in the opportunity to resolve the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s previous lawsuit.

3. Determination on the claim such as designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, visitation right, etc.

As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is rejected, the remainder of claims premised on the divorce between the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.