2015drid2672 Divorce, etc.

DoA (*************************))

Address Gyeong-nam

Busan District Court

KimB (************ 2***********)))

Busan Address

Busan place of service

Busan District Court

December 23, 2015

January 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced. With respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “Dongdongsan”), the Defendant shall implement the procedure for property division, such as transfer of ownership, etc. on the ground of property division on the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have grounds for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparag. 4 and 6 of the Civil Act, on the grounds that the Defendant did not properly support the Plaintiff’s mother, provided verbal abuse, assault, and treated the Defendant with her father, and that it cannot no longer maintain the marital life with the Defendant, such as making a long-term separation.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married on December 3, 1997 and have one male and female who has attained majority between them.

B. At the time of marriage, the Plaintiff had the construction company, which is a large company, and the Defendant served as an elementary school teacher, and had no economic difficulties in the early marriage.

C. The Plaintiff entered a small-scale construction company after having been on duty and established and operated a small-scale construction company. On the ground of its business, the Plaintiff was negligent at home, such as entering a high-priced car and making golf, but not making any time to pay for living expenses. The Plaintiff filed a complaint for a crime of adultery with a person with poor name and unjust conduct, and was detained for three months.

D. The Plaintiff, a person of distinguished service to the State, was unable to operate a building company, was supported several times by the Plaintiff’s mother, but most of its properties were dried. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s mother was living together in the Namsan-dong, Busan.

E. Around that time, the Plaintiff was living together with leapCC while living together. On April 6, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased the Busan Eastdong on May 7, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 7, 2007, but transferred it to leapCC on June 11, 2007.

F. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant sent to Gangwon-do on around 2002 due to the change of work place. On around around 2007, the Defendant left the racing and went to the Busan Southern-dong with a family member only at the weekend. On the other hand, there are many cases where the Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently disputed the Plaintiff’s business depression, additional hot dust, misconduct, etc. and the Defendant did not go to Busan-do even if the Defendant landed to Busan-do.

G. On January 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant joined a judgment with the marriage of a woman, and the Plaintiff organized the relationship with leapCC, and on February 26, 2008, transferred the ownership of the instant real estate in the future to the Defendant, and received KRW 50 million from the Defendant for business funds and the aforementioned registration expenses.

H. After that, the Plaintiff leased the above Namsan-dong Ba to a third party without the Defendant’s name, the Plaintiff’s mother was in a so-called “maid hospital” in which the mother’s disease was deep, and the mother was in a so-called “maid hospital,” and the Defendant retired around August 2014, but did not have a certain address, transferred the mother’s house to the present child and left the house.

I. On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant divorce lawsuit. The Defendant stated from this Court that, during the marriage life of 37 years, the Plaintiff was able to have an implied and implied family, and that, even if married children and grandchildren are viewed, they do not want to have a divorce and their families want to gather the thickness.

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1, 2, 4, 5 through 9, Eul 1's each statement (including Serial number for those with Serial number), evidence ruptures, all or part of Doles' testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. In light of the above facts, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the spouse under Articles 840 subparag. 4 and 6 of the Civil Act, as alleged by the Plaintiff, has extremely maltreated his/her lineal ascendant or has a serious reason to make it difficult to continue his/her marriage. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, in light of the above facts, even if the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the cause of the failure was unreasonable, and that the Plaintiff is mainly responsible for the failure to care for his/her wife and his/her children while maintaining an illegitimate relationship with leleCC, etc.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is a responsible spouse, cannot file a claim for divorce on the ground of the circumstances as alleged above. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is objectively apparent that the Defendant does not have any intention to continue the marriage, but only does not comply with the divorce in clerical or retaliation sentiment, or it is difficult to view that there exists any special circumstance that the Plaintiff’s liability does not remain to the extent of rejecting the claim for divorce, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed on the grounds that one can see it and there is no reason to dismiss it.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges already appointed