Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Yellow-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm International, Attorney Kim Jin-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

December 17, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant shall file a report of marriage in advance on September 30, 2005, and they are legal couples who write down a marriage ceremony on December 17 of the same year.

B. As above, the Plaintiff and the Defendant left the Republic of Korea with the United States where the Plaintiff was studying abroad at the time of January 17, 2006 after entering a marriage, and returned to Korea on August 18, 2007 when the Plaintiff completed the MBA course, and lived with the Plaintiff’s parents at the home of the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a marital relationship in the U.S. as well as in the new travel period, and the relationship between the two parties was not good. The Plaintiff’s parents known of this fact should endeavor to have a marital relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant around August 31, 2007, but thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a marital relationship with the Defendant.

D. Thereafter, on November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit of this case.

E. The Plaintiff did not make any effort or attempt to improve the relationship with the Defendant in the ongoing conciliation or reconciliation procedure during the trial of the instant case, and did not make any effort or intent to maintain or improve the marital relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant in the psychological consultation procedure upon the recommendation of the instant court.

F. After filing the instant divorce lawsuit, the Plaintiff strongly demanded the Defendant to leave the Plaintiff’s side recruitment, but the Defendant did not comply with this, and has used the Plaintiff’s side recruitment as well as the Plaintiff’s side recruitment until now.

G. After the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff expressed his strong intention to divorce until now, while the Defendant is absolutely unable to comply with the divorce.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

The plaintiff asserts that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was no longer able to recover any longer due to the defendant's mistake refusing physical contact or sexual intercourse with the plaintiff from the date of marriage to the date of marriage, without reasonable grounds, and that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has been brought against the defendant.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the testimony of the Non-party witness alone by the statement of the health team, the evidence No. 2 and No. 12 and the testimony of the Non-party witness alone refused physical contact or sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff without any obvious reason as alleged by the Plaintiff. Moreover, it is difficult to recognize that the above facts alone are sufficient to recognize that the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was broken down to the extent that it is no longer recoverable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-gu