Plaintiff (Attorney Kang Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Hong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 20, 2003

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be divorced with the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a solatium of KRW 100,00,000 and 25% interest per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment. The Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the portion of 1/2 of the real estate in the separate sheet as property division to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 13, 1972, and have 1 South and North son under the chain.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was broken down due to the following defendant's responsibility:

① After marriage, the Plaintiff and the Defendant operated a restaurant (mutual omission) in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheongvibration, and the Plaintiff prepared and faithfully operated the restaurant, while the Defendant was infected by a sexual disease by being out of the restaurant without seeing the restaurant.

② From around 1985, the Defendant doubtfuls the Plaintiff that the Defendant deducteds the restaurant income, while booming the Plaintiff, booming the bath and assault, doing mental illness, and bullying the Plaintiff.

③ The Defendant, while having come to the Plaintiff’s friendship Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff’s death, gave emotional impulse to the Plaintiff by concluding an unfluent relationship.

④ Since around 1999, the Defendant criticizes the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 to have committed an unlawful act while doubtful the relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, and sold the Plaintiff’s unlawful act to his awareness and made the relationship between the Plaintiff and his consciousness far far far far away.

⑤ Until three years ago, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff was in a cafeteria located in Seoul (Slue Address omitted); (c) and (d) the Plaintiff was in a cafeteria, a slue house; and (b) thereafter, the Plaintiff was in the said apartment, but the Plaintiff was in the said apartment. However, around September 2002, the Defendant again got out of the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In light of the statement of evidence No. 5, which corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion, the statement of evidence No. 15-1 to No. 3, Gap No. 16, and No. 24 is hard to believe in light of the following facts acknowledged. The statement of evidence No. 6 and No. 14, the video of evidence No. 7, and the testimony of witness No. 1 are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion.

B. Rather, comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1 through 23, Eul evidence Nos. 25-27, Eul evidence Nos. 28-1 through 33, Eul evidence Nos. 30-3 through 8, Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, 19, Gap evidence Nos. 21-1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 20-1 through 4, the contents of investigation report by family affairs investigator, Eul evidence Nos. 20-1 through 4, the whole purport of pleadings is acknowledged as follows.

(1) After marriage, the Defendant acquired a cooking license on December 1, 1975, and worked as a cook at a hotel, from February 1, 1976, worked as a kitchen at the restaurant located in Jongno-gu Seoul (mutual omission). From February 1, 1978, the Defendant acquired and operated a restaurant (mutual omission) directly from around February 1, 1978.

(2) As a result, the Defendant faithfully operated a restaurant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the land and above-ground buildings listed in the attached Table Nos. 3 through 5 on October 29, 1982 with the profits, etc. of (mutual omission) cafeterias, and continuously moved to the said place and operated the restaurant in the same trade name, and on March 20, 190, purchased the land and above-ground buildings listed in (the above trade name omitted), and operated the restaurant by expanding the restaurant from November 18, 193 to its place. On July 30, 1993, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the land and above-ground buildings listed in the attached Table Nos. 3 through 5 on October 29, 192 and moved to the said place, and resided in the said place.

(3) The Defendant faithfully operates a restaurant from the new wall to the night, prepared for his children’s city to take hand, and sent his children to the school, etc. On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not assist in operating the restaurant while going to the restaurant in the (mutual omission) restaurant, and did not assist his/her own house and nurture his/her children. In particular, the Defendant’s and his/her children, as well as his/her children pointed out the Plaintiff’s mistake, repeated words and behavior of insulting and insulting the Plaintiff’s behavior while putting the Defendant’s desire to do so. As the Defendant and his/her children were responding to the Plaintiff’s abusive and assault, the Defendant and his/her children did not have to observe the Plaintiff’s behavior.

(4) On the other hand, from around July 1999, the Plaintiff frequently went along with Nonparty 2, and frequently went together with Nonparty 2, and the doubtful pages between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, which were observed by July 2000, are as follows.

① 1999.경 롯데호텔에서 원고, 피고의 집으로 소외 2가 숙박비를 지불하지 않고 갔다는 전화가 왔는데, 딸 증인 2가 여기는 소외 2의 집이 아니라고 답변하자 호텔측에서는 소외 2가 연락처로 댁의 전화번호를 기재하여 전화를 하게 된 것이라고 하였다.

② Around June 1999, Nonparty 3 returned to the school, and the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 were in the same place, and Nonparty 2 was in a yellow color and left the clothes.

③ Around March 200, 200, a witness 2 to his/her son 2 went to a school, o.e., p. p.m. class was closed, and o.m. returned to his/her house as soon as scheduled, and the Plaintiff opened the door, and Nonparty 2, who entered the room by opening the door, she saw Nonparty 2 to wear the clothes in a yellow manner, and the inside bank did not arrange the fluence and the suspension.

(5) On July 200, around 11, 200, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) on the road along which they embarked on a vehicle from a restaurant to a restaurant; (b) on the two-hour later, a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant occurred; (c) while a motor vehicle was parked before a signal light, the motor vehicle was parked at the vehicle while the vehicle was stopped before the signal light, and (d) thereafter, the vehicle was accommodated in the restaurant at the (trade omission) restaurant.

(6) Around May 2002, the Plaintiff had entered Seoul (SP omitted) but around September 2002, caused a lot of damages due to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, who was able to the Defendant, was deprived of the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s

(7) The Plaintiff voluntarily cancelled the insurance or received the accounts after the arrival of Nonparty 2, and voluntarily released and used the accounts, and used the revenues of the restaurant at the Cheongjin-gu Party without any doubt with the Defendant, and borne a large amount of obligations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is currently urged to pay from the creditors at any time.

(8) After the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 10, 2003, the Plaintiff led the Defendant to commit assault by bullyinging the Defendant with a huge amount of time, scambling, pentle, etc. by neglecting the Defendant’s scam. Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the skin damage to the ma portion on March 12, 2003, and the skin damage to the bridge part on April 15, 2003.

(9) The Defendant determined that it is impossible to operate a restaurant normally due to the accumulation of the Plaintiff’s debt for the goods at the restaurant (mutual omission) and the employee’s wage flassium, and that the Defendant, upon his children’s end, intended to arrange the restaurant at the end on April 16, 2003. The Plaintiff was flasing the Defendant at the time of the call with the Defendant, and the Defendant was flasing on his hand at the time of the call. The Defendant, who was unable to check the Plaintiff’s face in order to defend the Plaintiff’s assault, caused the Plaintiff’s injury, such as the Plaintiff’s gambling and credit flasty, etc., by pushing the Plaintiff’s face to defend the Plaintiff’s assault. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff’s failure was not genuine, the Defendant filed a report with the Defendant, and the Defendant continued to have the Plaintiff’s verbal abuse and the Plaintiff’s failure, and the Defendant did not dispute the Plaintiff’s each of the Plaintiff’s remaining flasium in the future.

(10) In the meantime, the Plaintiff’s abusive and assault against the Defendant continues to be inflicted on June 6, 2003, the Defendant, on August 10, 2003, on the arms, fingers, legs, etc., and on August 15, 2003, suffered injuries, such as strawing, inspection, etc., but the Defendant was more likely to have a bad relationship and prevented the Defendant from responding thereto.

(11) The Defendant or his children, who did not use the money specially, voluntarily use the proceeds of the restaurant and bear a large amount of debt, is to assist Nonparty 2’s business, and thus, the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit as a means of solving the impossibility of repayment due to accumulation of debt. The Defendant stated to the effect that the Plaintiff’s divorce is opposed to the divorce, as there is room for recovery of the relationship in the event that the Plaintiff has ceased to engage in verbal abuse and assault against the Defendant and his/her own mistake and has ceased to borrow money.

C. According to the above facts, the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has no longer been terminated to the extent that it would be difficult to recover. However, the responsibility caused the failure of the marriage is not only the operation of the restaurant but also the operation of the restaurant, domestic affairs, rearing, etc., and exercising verbal abuse and assault against the Defendant and his/her children, and the Defendant and his/her children come to a common sense that it is difficult to understand from the point of view of Nonparty 2’s contact with Nonparty 2, and bring about conflicts by using the revenues of the restaurant at will, etc. (mutual omission) and bearing a large amount of debt, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff requested a divorce by leaving the mix between the Defendant and his/her children without any effort to resolve the conflict, and even if it is objectively evident that the Defendant had no intention to continue the marriage with the Plaintiff after the failure, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce against the failure of the marital life in this case cannot be accepted.

D. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is without merit, and the Plaintiff’s claim for consolation money and division of property also are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Lee Kang-won (Presiding Judge)