logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.23 2017가단5026204
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant and C’s marriage life 1) The Defendant is a high school education teacher, Nonparty C was an entertainment journal of Meart newspaper worker, and Nonparty C was married with her husband and wife on May 20, 2006 through several months after her met or became aware of at a her native group, and completed the marriage report on November 24, 2006, and the Defendant and C had D and E under the supervision of conflict among marriage life, and C demanded a divorce with Defendant on May 4, 2013, and repeated her home and abroad late.

3) On July 5, 2013, C, under the influence of alcohol, returned home to the Defendant, took a bath and walking the wind, etc. On the following day, C was a assault, such as drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol, and the police called the Defendant’s hair and drinking head around August 30, 2013. B. The Defendant and C’s divorce lawsuit (hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit”).

In addition, on August 20, 2013, C filed a divorce lawsuit against the Defendant with the Seoul Family Court 2013Ddan 305978, and thereafter, C was in a separate state from December 10, 2013 to the present.

On the other hand, upon the claim for divorce by C on October 22, 2014, the said court: “C assaulted the Defendant during the marriage period, thereby breaking out the shoulder and tearing tearing injury; in particular, after May 2013, the Plaintiff of this case is the Plaintiff of this case without any special reason.

Along with the fact that the Defendant, by frequently visiting his house, did not make any effort to restore trust with the Defendant, and did so by any extreme means, to carry out only his claim by unilaterally, such as exercising assault against the Defendant and unilaterally filing a divorce lawsuit in this case. Although it is objectively obvious that the Defendant does not have any intent to continue marriage, the Defendant did not comply with a divorce in a clerical error or retaliation.

arrow