2012dern 9692 Divorce

A

B

May 21, 2013

June 11, 2013

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. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 1971, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reported their marriage to the Republic of Korea, and have two adult daughters.

B. From around 1988, the Plaintiff, while drinking with C and C, had C drink and her clothes laundry the Plaintiff’s clothes, continued to teach C with C in around 2002 and while staying separately with C around 202.

C. The Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant living expenses during the period of his stay separately with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2-1, 2, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Evidence No. 4-1, 2-2, family affairs investigator's investigation report, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's abusive language and abusive language were abused and abusive desire to the plaintiff while married life caused the failure of the plaintiff and the defendant's marital relationship with the defendant pursuant to Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of No. 7 and the statement of investigation report by family affairs investigator alone could cause the defendant to cause them to each other in a non-fire or conflict situation between husband and wife, and that the defendant unilaterally abused and abusive language were made to the plaintiff beyond the extent of the dispute. In addition, there is no evidence to support that the defendant committed assault, abuse or insult to the extent that it is deemed that compelling the plaintiff to continue the marital relationship was harsh, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the plaintiff's reasoning that the plaintiff's marital relationship with the plaintiff and the defendant's spouse did not appear alone because the plaintiff did not live together with the plaintiff's spouse, and that the plaintiff's marital relationship with the plaintiff's spouse would have reached a divorce pursuant to Article 840 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff was diagnosed at D University Hospital and E University Hospital, and that the plaintiff did not suffer from her spouse's distress because of the plaintiff's lack of any specific circumstance, such as the plaintiff's death, and that the plaintiff did not appear to have reached a divorce by the plaintiff's spouse's 1, 2, and 6-1, 2, and 2, and the family investigator's report on investigation. However, according to the above reasoning of the court below, the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff did not appear to have been able to receive a divorce by the plaintiff's spouse's 1, 200 and the defendant's defendant's 2, who did not appear to have been able to receive a divorce by the plaintiff's 1 and 6-2.

D. As the Plaintiff demanded division of property on the premise that the Plaintiff is divorced from the Plaintiff, and accordingly, paid a reasonable amount of money out of the purchase price to the Defendant after selling the apartment under the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant would seek divorce with the Defendant through the above divorce agreement. If the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased H apartment Nos. 8 and 701 on July 9, 1992 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name. The Plaintiff’s purchase of the above apartment Nos. 60 million won from the purchase price at the Defendant’s request on May 2008, the Plaintiff’s remaining 45,000,000 won from the purchase price was deposited in the bank under the Plaintiff’s joint name, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce with the Defendant, including a divorce under the Daegu Family Court No. 12783, Dec. 27, 200, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s above lawsuit had been withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s deposit.

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.

Judge Goh Sung