The governing law of a divorce case involving a Chinese father

With respect to the causes of divorce cases involving additional Chinese divorce, the provisions of Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws shall be applied in parallel to the Chinese Civil Law and the Korean Law.

Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws

Claimant

appellees

The appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed.

Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

The appellant and the appellee shall be divorced.

The adjudication on the cost of trial shall be borne by the respondent.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (foreign registry), which have no dispute in the establishment of the establishment, the appellant and the defendant can recognize the fact that foreigners who have the nationality of each of the countries of foreign citizens have married on September 13, 1976 and have lived in the Republic of Korea, and there is no counter-proof.

The claimant is filing a petition for divorce of this case with a Korean court, which is subject to so-called conflict of laws. Thus, the governing law of this case is first applied to this case, and under Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws Act of Korea, the divorce between foreigners in conflict of laws and foreigners in Korea shall be governed by the governing law of the father at the time of the occurrence of the cause. Thus, since the foreigner who is the respondent in this case is a foreigner with the nationality of the father of the father of the father of the father at the time of the occurrence of the cause, the law of the father of the father of the father in this case shall be applied. Meanwhile, under the proviso of the above Article of the law, the court shall not make a declaration of divorce if the cause of divorce does not cause a divorce by the laws of the Republic of Korea. Thus, the provisions of the above law provide that the parties of divorce shall not be applied

The claimant asserts that the respondent has abandoned the wife in bad faith as the part of the defendant's non-competence. Thus, according to the statement of No. 3 (Investigation Report) without dispute about the establishment and testimony of non-party witness's witness (except for the part not trusted in the rear) of 1966, the claimant and the respondent have 3 South Korea since 1966. Since around 1973, since around 1973, the respondent cannot be deemed to have lost his ability to support the wife's consciousness as he was living away from his family in both sides since 1977 without being able to support the wife's consciousness. However, the testimony of non-party witness's non-party witness who intentionally discarded the wife's consciousness beyond the above recognition level, and there is no other evidence to prove the above facts.

Therefore, even if the above facts are deemed to constitute a cause for judicial divorce under Article 1052 subparagraph 7 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Korea, the above facts alone cannot be deemed to constitute a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Korea, and such facts cannot be deemed to constitute a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and in this case where the respondent fails to prove that there is a cause for judicial divorce, the petitioner's request for a trial shall eventually return to the fact that there is no reason for judicial divorce.

Therefore, the claimant's appeal is unfair and dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Administrative patent judges Il-dong (Presiding Judge) Park Jong-jin