beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The first divorce lawsuit between C and C was completed on November 16, 1978, and C had married life. 2) On September 4, 2009, C against the Plaintiff, Cheongju District Court 2009dhap387 (this transmission case No. 2009ddan6517), the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act against the Plaintiff (Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act), and the Plaintiff treated the Plaintiff unfairly (Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act), C’s motherD (Article 840 subparagraph 4 of the same Article), and C’s motherD were also treated unfairly (Article 840 subparagraph 4 of the same Act), and there are significant grounds that it is difficult to continue marriage with the Plaintiff.
(No. 6 of the same Article), alleging that they filed a lawsuit for divorce, consolation money, and division of property.
(2) On February 17, 2012, Article 840 subparag. 1 and 4 of the Civil Act does not provide any evidence to acknowledge the grounds for Article 840 subparag. 3 of the same Act. As to the grounds for Article 840 subparag. 3 of the same Act, it is difficult to deem that C and the Plaintiff’s marital relationship had been forced to continue the marital relationship by extremely unfair treatment from the Plaintiff. As to the grounds for subparagraph 6 of the same Article, it is deemed that C and the Plaintiff’s marital relationship had been substantially broken around September 28, 2009 and it is impossible to recover. However, the failure’s liability lies in C, and the Plaintiff’s intention to continue the marriage is objectively obvious, but it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not comply with the divorce in a misunderstanding or retaliation appraisal. Thus, C’s claim for divorce cannot be permitted in principle as it constitutes a divorce claim by the responsible spouse, and as long as C’s claim for divorce is without any justifiable reason.
'for reasons, the judgment dismissing all C's claims was pronounced.
4) C was dissatisfied with the above judgment of the first instance court, and appealed with the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju 2012Reu29, but on September 20, 2012, upon being sentenced to the dismissal of an appeal by the said appellate court, on September 20, 2012, and thereafter appealed with the Supreme Court Decision 201Meu464, May 16, 2014.