2012drid2486 Divorce and division of property, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

February 5, 2013

February 19, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The plaintiff shall be divorced from the defendant. The defendant shall pay consolation money to the plaintiff 10,000,000 won and this shall not apply to the plaintiff.

shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

D. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and guardian of the principal of this case. The defendant shall file a complaint of this case with the plaintiff

The last day of each month shall be 300,000 won per month for the child support of the principal of the case until April 9, 2022 from the day after the duplicate is served.

H. D. D. D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 24, 2000, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) when she spacededs around 1995 and spaced around 1995; and (b) on March 24, 2002

26. Legal couple who has completed a marriage report, has the case principal between them.

B. On 198, the plaintiff and the defendant started the teaching franchise business which came to the defendant's body and the defendant's body with the help of both families, and took charge of the business of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant was in charge of the education system management and teachers management.

C. Around 2005, the Defendant’s omission, while operating a private company’s branch operated by the Plaintiff, was under stress while opening and operating the competitor, and the Plaintiff came to suffer stress, and as the Defendant left the Defendant’s mispercing, the Plaintiff came to have a strong mind against the Defendant, resulting in the Plaintiff’s mispercing mind against the Defendant, which led to the Defendant’s misperception.

D. Around September 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with D and B, who is an employee of the company, and entered the false statement that D and B had been jointly with other employees of E and E. During the Chinese business trip, it was easy for the Plaintiff to take off D’s hand or write D’s face. In Daegu, the Plaintiff continued to have D and B’s face from L and B, who is not a company, in the business trip of China.

E. Accordingly, from around 2008, the question between the Plaintiff and D’s employees came to spread, and the Defendant knew of this fact, and the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was growing.

F. From that date, around September 2010, the Defendant: (a) entered into a written agreement with the Plaintiff, which mainly states that the Defendant would pay KRW 300 million to the Defendant for consolation money and the division of property; (b) filed an application for divorce on September 14, 2010; and (c) the Defendant paid KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff around September 14, 2010, in accordance with the said agreement, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff around September 14, 2010.

G. However, on December 2010, the Defendant did not appear on the date for confirmation of the intention of divorce, and if the Plaintiff wishes to re-examine the Defendant, the Plaintiff was on the ground of KRW 300 million. However, the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s dismissal of D and entering into the association with D with intent to adjust the relationship with D. Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed on the conditions of divorce more than several occasions thereafter, the Defendant demanded KRW 100 million around February 201, and continued to reverse the Defendant’s intention, such as demanding KRW 150 million around February 201 and demanding KRW 150 million, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

H. Meanwhile, the Defendant is seeking a separate house after September 2010 to receive money from the Plaintiff, and the principal of the case is going to go to the Plaintiff’s house if the Plaintiff and the mother of the Plaintiff are going to go to the Plaintiff’s home when the Plaintiff and the mother are going to go to the Plaintiff’s business.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 8 to 12, investigation report by family affairs investigator, purpose of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was economically wasted by the Defendant without any grounds, and caused trouble to the management of the company as he suspected of the Plaintiff’s external appearance. Around September 2010, the Plaintiff refused to divorce with KRW 300 million upon the Plaintiff’s request for divorce and did not return to the house, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s marital relationship disappearedd, and this constitutes grounds for divorce as prescribed in subparagraphs 2 and 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Act, and sought divorce with the Defendant.

B. Determination

Since the plaintiff and the defendant's separate occupation are deemed to have been caused by mutual agreement, they cannot be deemed to have accrued from the defendant's responsibility. As to other grounds for divorce, each of the descriptions of Gap evidence 15, No. 16, No. 1, No. 16, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 18, and No. 2 are insufficient to recognize such facts, and even if such facts are recognized, it is difficult to view that they fall under the scope of grounds for divorce under Article 840, No. 2, and

In addition, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, including the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on a temporary divorce and applied for a divorce, and that the Defendant was living separately with the Plaintiff on September 2010, and that they were living separately from the Plaintiff, it is difficult to conclude that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant reached a failure to the extent that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant would no longer be recovered, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the Defendant, opposing the divorce with the Plaintiff and wishing to harmonize with the Plaintiff.

Even if the above marital relationship has broken down, it is more fundamental and principal responsibility for the plaintiff who continues to request only divorce without actively explaining such circumstances or making efforts to resolve such doubt, so the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case cannot be accepted as the plaintiff's claim for divorce of the responsible spouse. Furthermore, even though it is objectively obvious that the defendant has no intention to continue marriage with the plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge the special circumstance that it is only a failure to comply with the divorce in misunderstanding or retaliation sentiment even though it is objectively obvious that the defendant has no intention to continue marriage with the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is without merit.

3. Determination on consolation money, designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, and claim for child support

As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is rejected, the Plaintiff’s consolation money, designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, and the claim for child support are without merit.

4. Conclusion

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

Judge Lee fixed-term