Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 25, 2012

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. The plaintiff's assertion

As the cause of the claim in this case, the plaintiff neglected the plaintiff's salary to understand the plaintiff to be responsible for the home economy, and made verbal abuse, assault, and assault against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was late returned and drinking, and the defendant's parent and the defendant was trying to adjust the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant due to a damp false statement, while the plaintiff tried to adjust the marital relationship between the plaintiff's parent and the defendant, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was suffering from the plaintiff's workplace by threatening the plaintiff to the effect that he will leave his office by finding the plaintiff's workplace and filing a petition with the party, etc., without any choice but by threatening the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff's workplace will be retired from office on the end of January 200 after his voluntary retirement in 199 and thereafter, since the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was no longer maintained until that time, this constitutes a reason for divorce as prescribed in Article 80 (4) of the former Civil Act.

2. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on March 9, 1976, and have between themselves, Nonparty 2 (the birth of March 31, 1975) and Nonparty 3 (the birth of October 11, 1978) and Nonparty 4 (the birth of October 2, 1981).

Dol The plaintiff and the defendant had frequent disputes due to the plaintiff's late home, frequent drinking, external stay, etc. during their marital life.

Around 196, the Plaintiff entered the office of Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) with Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) by communicating Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) in 1996. Around June 11, 1998, Nonparty 5 (the Nonparty 1) with Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1).

Applicant The plaintiff came to know of the relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) and the defendant, and the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant is deepened, and the plaintiff voluntarily retires on or around December 1999 and the defendant cannot be sent to the defendant more together with the defendant. In January 200, the plaintiff was living together with the non-party 1 (the counter-party 1).

(v) The Plaintiff, while in the process of separate stay with the Defendant, paid the Defendant a monthly amount of KRW 1,00,000 per annum to the Defendant as living expenses. During the process of kidivement, the Plaintiff, after having talked about kidne to the Defendant and his children in around the end of 2011, did not pay the Defendant’s living expenses from January 201 to the Defendant.

⑹ 원고는 현재 동거 중인 소외 1(대판:소외인)과 사이에 중학생인 자녀가 있고, 병든 원고를 보살피고 있는 사람이 소외 1(대판:소외인)이므로 피고와의 혼인관계를 더 이상 유지할 수 없다고 주장하며 이혼을 강력히 원하고 있는 반면, 피고는 원고가 돌아올 것이라는 믿음이 있고 미혼인 두 자녀 때문이라도 원고의 이혼 청구에 동의할 수 없다고 한다.

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1 to 3, Eul 19 (including additional numbers), Eul 1, Eul 1, investigation report prepared by family affairs investigators, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendant are separate for more than 12 years, and all the plaintiff and the defendant do not make any effort to recover the relationship, and the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has reached the failure to recover any longer.

Furthermore, examining the causes of the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11 are insufficient to recognize that the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was caused by the defendant's fault as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, according to the above facts of recognition, the main cause of the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant exists between the plaintiff and his child while maintaining the illegal relationship with the non-party No. 1 (the non-party No. 1 (the non-party No. 1) from 1996, and the plaintiff who was living together with the non-party No. 1 (the counter-party No.

D. However, in principle, a spouse who is mainly responsible for the failure of the marital life may not file a petition for divorce on the ground of such failure. However, even though it is objectively apparent that the other party has no intention to continue the marriage after the failure, the other party is exceptionally entitled to the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse only if there are special circumstances such as the failure to comply with the divorce in misunderstandings or retaliation sentiment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Meu1378, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.).

In this case, the following circumstances recognized by the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 12, and 13 (including the virtual number) are as follows. In other words, the defendant applied for provisional disposition against real estate disposal by making the claim for property division as the preserved right against the plaintiff's property division concerning the Daegu-gu ( Address omitted) ○○ apartment (dong number omitted) on November 1999, and around December 2012, the defendant applied for provisional disposition against the above real estate again by making the claim for excessive compensation and past childcare expenses as the preserved right at the time when the decision prohibiting the above real estate disposal is revoked. The defendant applied for provisional seizure against the above real estate again at the time of the cancellation of the decision prohibiting the above real estate disposal. Although it is objectively obvious that the defendant has no intention to continue the marriage, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant did not comply with divorce from the misstatement or retaliation appraisal even though it is objectively obvious that the defendant did not have any intention to continue the marriage, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's claim for divorce as the spouse is not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cha fixed-line