2016dwards 5197 Divorce, etc.

Kim 1955, South Korea)

Address Ma-si

Reference domicile

Law Firm Doz.

Korea, 1961, 1000

Busan Address

Reference domicile

Law Firm Doz.

April 2017 4.20

May 25, 2017

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

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall be divorced from the plaintiff. The defendant shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of share ownership based on division of property as to 1/2 shares among the land in Busan-gu and 100 apartments on the land in Busan-gu and Busan-gu.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who reported their marriage on 0.0 and 0.0, and have two adult children under the chain.

B. From March 2014, the Plaintiff resided in the house and the pushing-si from around 2014, and the Defendant is residing in the Busan House.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 1, 2, Gap evidence No. 4, family affairs investigator's investigation report

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the marriage relationship has disappeared due to the defendant's unfair treatment of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's money during the marriage period, disregarding and gathering the plaintiff, frightencing the plaintiff, family care, long separation, and property division as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

1) As to the fact that the Defendant rendered unfair treatment against satis, it is not sufficient to recognize only the entries in Gap evidence 12-6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) In addition, the evidence submitted by the original high-priced level alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant neglected the Plaintiff and neglected his/her housework, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Meanwhile, in light of the records of No. 5 and evidence No. 6-1 through 6 of the evidence No. 6, and the official guidance between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty 00, which are acknowledged to show the overall purport of the pleadings in the family affairs investigation report by the family affairs investigation officer, the Defendant: (a) concluded that the Defendant suspected of having a female relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had a wind at the Plaintiff’s elementary school alumni conference; and (b) took a serious bath for the Plaintiff. Even if so, the Defendant did not appear to have taken the Plaintiff on the basis of reasonable grounds or grounds.

4) Furthermore, the couple is obliged to live together and support each other and cooperate with each other (the first sentence of Article 826(1) of the Civil Act), and the place where the couple’s living together is to be determined by the agreement of the couple (the first sentence of Article 826(2) of the Civil Act), and according to the statement of evidence Nos. 826(2) and Nos. 3 and 4 of the Civil Act, and the report of investigation by the family affairs investigator, the plaintiff and the defendant couple lived with the plaintiff in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and the defendant are able to recognize the fact that the defendant is living together with the workplace by running cleaning service provider. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed a violation of the obligation to live with the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not comply with the report of investigation by the family affairs investigator, and the defendant seems to have made efforts to recover the plaintiff, satna, etc. even after leaving the plaintiff at any time after leaving the place separately by the plaintiff.

5) In addition to the above circumstances, the defendant still has the ability to keep his/her family in order to protect his/her family, and in addition, the plaintiff, the defendant's child, Kim*, the defendant's child, and the defendant's divorce, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant's marriage was no longer broken down to the extent that the defendant's marriage is no longer recoverable.

The Plaintiff’s claim for divorce, which is a responsible spouse, is not acceptable, even if the Defendant’s marital relationship has broken down, is deemed to have been inappropriate and unilateral, as well as inappropriate relationships with other women, and as the Plaintiff’s fault in making efforts to recover the marital relationship is greater.

6) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is without merit, and there is no reason to further examine the remainder of the claim for division of property, which is sought on the premise of the establishment of divorce.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Sang-sung