Plaintiff (Law Firm Ba, Attorney Park Yong-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The principal of the case and one other

April 20, 2005

Daegu District Court Family Branch Decision 2003Ra17998 delivered on June 15, 2004

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced. The plaintiff shall be designated as the person exercising parental authority over the principal of the case.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-1, 2, 3, and 8-1, 2, 3, and 8.

A. The plaintiff who is a male with the nationality of the United States of America and the legal address of the United States of America and the defendant who was a female with the nationality of the Republic of Korea, is a married couple with the law of November 6, 191, which has reported marriage in Seoul, and has the principal of the case as his child.

B. The Defendant acquired the U.S. citizenship after marriage with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant have resided in the U.S. branch from July 1992 to July 1994 during the marriage period.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) International jurisdiction and applicable law;

(1) Under Article 2(1) of the Private International Act, the Plaintiff and the Defendant currently have the habitual residence in the Republic of Korea, and the marriage between them was established in the Republic of Korea, and most of their marital lives were conducted in the Republic of Korea, so this Court has the jurisdiction over this case, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Private International Act.

In addition, according to Article 39 and Article 37 subparagraph 1 of the Private International Act, the law of nationality of the couple is first applied to divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant, so the law of nationality of the United States of America is the law of the United States of America. Since the United States is a different country according to its region, the law of the State of America, which belongs to the plaintiff, should be applied pursuant to Article 3 (3) of the Private International Act. On the other hand, in the case of the United States of America, according to the general principles of the private international law on divorce which is generally approved by precedents and theories, the law of suspension is recognized as the law of law (Article 71 and Article 285 of the Private International Law), and this is also the same in the case of the State of America to which the plaintiff belongs. Accordingly, the law of the Republic of Korea shall be applied as the governing law of the case, the parental authority at the time of designation of the governing law of Article 9 (1) of the Private International Act, and the law of the Republic of Korea as the governing authority of Korea to the exercise of the child.

B. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Defendant: (a) took verbal abuse and assault, such as when the Plaintiff or she blrings and recklessly took a bath in the manner of viewing other people; (b) when the Plaintiff visits the Plaintiff’s right together, the Plaintiff’s mother and flive speech and flick; and (c) committed an indecent act with the Plaintiff’s mother and flick; and (d) committed an indecent act with the instant principal while raising the instant principal while frequently.

B. The Defendant was negligent in doing so even though he tried to learn English and U.S. culture and morals in consideration of the Plaintiff’s position that he did not at all in Korean language, and did not provide the principal of the case with a separate room for the purpose of drawing the fluence in the house. In addition, the Defendant was negligent in doing so, taking into account the Plaintiff’s position that he did not make Korean language. The Defendant did not provide the principal of the case with any such education.

The plaintiff paid approximately KRW 40 million to the defendant as monthly living expenses. The defendant collected the money and concealed it in his own account without paying it as his family's living expenses. The terms and conditions of the lease of the apartment house living in his family at the time were changed from KRW 20 million, KRW 80 million, KRW 150,000,000,0000, monthly income from KRW 1150,000,000,000 and KRW 200,000,000,000,000 won were concealed, and 1.50,000,000 won was disbursed monthly. The principal of this case demanded the plaintiff from time to time on the ground

Around July 2003, the plaintiff had a key to the defendant at the end of the marital fighting between the defendant and the defendant, and thereafter, the defendant prevented the plaintiff from generating the key in the house, and the plaintiff was abandoned in bad faith, such as the plaintiff's director at a different and small level of reputation.

(v) The reasons above are the grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 3 and No. 6 of the Civil Code, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks to designate the Plaintiff as the person exercising parental authority over the Defendant and the principal of the case.

C. Determination

(1) Article 840 Subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides that “When one of the parties to a marriage is extremely maltreated by the spouse,” the term “if one of the parties to the marriage is extremely maltreated by the spouse” refers to a case where one of the parties to the marriage has received violence, abuse, or serious insult to the extent that it would be harsh that it would compel the other spouse to continue the marriage relationship. Even if one of the parties to the marriage was involved in a serious emotional distress during the process of family inequality, if it is relatively minor, it does not constitute a case where one of the parties received extremely unfair treatment under Article 840 Subparag. 3 of the Civil Act.

In addition, "where there is any other serious reason that makes it difficult to continue a marriage," which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, "if there is any other reason that makes it difficult to continue a marriage," means the case where the marital relationship of the couple corresponding to the essence of the marriage, which should be based on difficulties and trust between the couple, has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and enforcing the continuation of the marital life, is a cause for which one spouse cannot join. In determining this, the degree of the failure, the intention to continue the marriage, the existence of the intention to continue the marriage, the party's liability for the cause of the failure, the period of marital life,

D. The testimony of the court of first instance on this case is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant renounced his/her duty as a couple to live together, grow together, and cooperate with each other without justifiable grounds, and that the plaintiff or his/her lineal ascendant has been abandoned in bad faith, or that the plaintiff or his/her lineal ascendant has been forced to engage in violence against the defendant, due to verbal abuse or other reasons attributable to the defendant's failure in treatment of the plaintiff's life without any justifiable reason. The testimony of the first instance court's testimony of the first instance trial witness mark, the second instance court's testimony, the second instance court's testimony, the second instance court's testimony, and the second instance court's testimony, the second instance court's testimony, and the second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's testimony, the second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's testimony, and the second instance evidence was not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's failure in marriage or other reasons attributable to the defendant's injury.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case and the claim for designation of the person who exercises parental authority and the person who takes custody of the principal of this case on the premise of divorce of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Oi Tax Rate (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung