2017drid206515 Divorce

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

May 1, 2018

May 15, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 12, 1980, the plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who reported a marriage, and they are married with children who have become adults among themselves.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, after marriage, established a new marriage house at the bottom of the Seo-gu, Busan and lived. From 1990 to 190 after retirement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant lived with Busan and South-west Sea by operating a ship electronic equipment business in the trade name called "in lieu of "00" to Busan and Gyeongnam-gun.

C. After the 1997 foreign exchange crisis, the Plaintiff proposed that the Plaintiff be able to move his/her domicile to South Sea on June 13, 2012 and his/her remaining life together with his/her mother and going to Busan as the business performance, such as a fire, etc., occurred at the Busan located in the Busan located area after the 1997 foreign exchange crisis. However, the Plaintiff proposed that the Plaintiff be able to move to South Sea with the Defendant at the time of the 197 foreign exchange crisis, but the Defendant was expected to have economic difficulties, such as the Plaintiff’s thought to receive additional farming loans, and thus, refused this.

D. Since the commencement of the business, the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant a separate living fee, and the Defendant has been in charge of home living expenses on behalf of the Plaintiff as an insurance solicitor since 1987 in order to compensate for the living expenses on behalf of the Plaintiff, and during that period, the Plaintiff has paid the Plaintiff’s obligations, or has paid the Plaintiff’s guidance expenses, condolence investigation expenses, and alumni fees.

E. On December 25, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to furnish KRW 30 million to the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s refusal to provide the same demand to his/her children, which led to rapid fall between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant and his/her children.

F. Meanwhile, around November 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased and held an apartment in Busan-dong in the name of the Defendant for KRW 50 million, which was located in the name of the Defendant. However, the Defendant considered that the Plaintiff had the same obligation to the Plaintiff from large Rucos and had concerns over compulsory execution, and filed for the registration of ownership transfer of the above apartment on November 30, 2014. The Defendant sold the above apartment in the name of the Plaintiff around January 2017, purchased and moved into the Busan-do Multi-si apartment in the name of the Plaintiff. In that process, the Defendant did not win the Plaintiff.

G. The Plaintiff is engaged in various activities, such as running a golf with the head and honorary auditor in South Sea, from South Sea to the head and honorary auditor, and the Plaintiff also put a commemorative photograph marked with other women into the Kakaoto Ri.

H. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to divorce between each other on January 2017, and caused the shipment of the application for divorce by agreement, and the Defendant did not appear on the date of divorce and thus the agreement did not result in divorce.

I. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant application for conciliation with the Defendant again, and the Defendant appeared at the family investigation and the date of pleading and, during that period, she was able to move to a marriage with a child, and her only her only her home, and the Plaintiff did not live in the Republic of Korea due to the fact that there is no circumstance for the Plaintiff to live in the remaining sea without a distance, and it does not lead to the failure of marriage, such as continuing to move to the country, even though the Plaintiff does not live together, and the Plaintiff did not have any intention to divorce because she wishes to live with another woman.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, investigation and reporting by family affairs investigators, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From the beginning of the marriage with the Defendant, the Plaintiff had no difficulties in the Plaintiff’s business due to the foreign exchange crisis in 197, and there was a rapid gap between the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s resident registration in Busan was transferred to South and North Korea on June 13, 2012. The Defendant, without the Plaintiff, sold the apartment house located in Busan, a common property of the couple, and purchased the apartment house in Busan, under the name of the Plaintiff, at the Busan, under the name of the Plaintiff, and did not play a role of spouse, such as not visiting the hospital to the hospital to perform the surgery. Since 10 years have passed since the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a marital relationship, and the Plaintiff applied for divorce in January 2017, without having reached the attitude of divorce between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant did not cooperate with the Plaintiff to the extent that the Plaintiff did not have been able to recover from one’s marital relationship. The Defendant did not cooperate with the other for the purpose of divorce.

B. Whether the failure in a marriage is recognized, and

The Plaintiff transferred his domicile to the South Sea around June 13, 2012 and demanded the Defendant to prepare KRW 30 million around December 25, 2014. However, it appears to be true that the Defendant’s refusal of this demand is far away from the Plaintiff and the Defendant rapidly, and that the communication between the Plaintiff and the Defendant becomes excellent. However, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is in a situation where it is difficult to recover at present.

C. Determination on causes attributable to the company

Even if the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has actually ceased, it is considered whether the defendant is mainly responsible for the dissolution of the marriage.

The plaintiff and the defendant have been living in both South and North Korea for a long time and Busan, and the defendant caused the plaintiff's economic uncertainty and negligence in home, etc., and transferred the joint property of the couple to son without the plaintiff and son without the plaintiff, etc. are acknowledged as above.

However, such circumstances and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is mainly responsible for the dissolution of marriage as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, during the marriage period up to 38 years, the Plaintiff provided the cause of conflict between husband and wife because the Plaintiff was living in the Republic of Korea with the Defendant and did not go to and go to Busan, and did not pay the living expenses. Although the Plaintiff was able to liquidate and combine remaining life in the Republic of Korea for the recovery of relationship with the Defendant, it was not even even if it was possible to do so for the restoration of relationship with the Defendant, and if such a method is difficult, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff made such efforts. If the Plaintiff was unable to take place on behalf of the Plaintiff who was negligent at home within the marriage period, and was responsible for the Defendant’s home life, and did not respond only to divorce by the Defendant, without disregarding the Defendant’s efforts and pain, it is consistent with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not have any factual fault.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce, unless there are special circumstances to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce constitutes a divorce claim by the responsible spouse.

D. Whether a responsible spouse’s claim for divorce is exceptionally permitted

1) Prohibition of a claim for divorce by a responsible spouse is against the morality required by the marriage system and is aimed at preventing any consequences contrary to the principle of good faith. Thus, even in light of the ideal pursued by the marriage system and the principle of good faith, where the liability of the spouse does not remain to the extent that the claim for divorce should be rejected, a claim for divorce by such spouse is unlikely to disrupt the marriage and the system of family, and is not contrary to the morality and ethics of the society, and thus permissible. Therefore, where the other spouse has no intention to continue marriage and there is no concern about divorce or divorce according to one’s will, as well as where the other spouse has been protected and considered to the extent that his/her / her her responsibilities are offset, referring to the 5th anniversary of the lapse of the third month’s marriage and the 5th spouse’s responsibilities at the time of marriage and the other spouse’s responsibilities for the other spouse’s life at the time of the dissolution of the marriage, and where the other spouse’s life and the other spouse’s responsibilities for divorce are not permitted, there are more specific circumstances to permit.

2) In this case, in light of the above legal principles, the health team, the defendant expressed his intention of opposing the divorce in the process of the instant lawsuit, and the defendant wants to recover the marital relationship with the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant cannot be deemed to have simply refused to accept the plaintiff's claim for divorce in a clerical error or retaliation appraisal. In addition, the protection and consideration against the defendant was made to the extent that the plaintiff's responsibilities are offset. In addition, when compared to the period of the married life of the plaintiff and the defendant, the separate period is relatively shorter than the period, and it cannot be deemed that the reason why the plaintiff's responsibilities significant at the time of the marriage and the mental suffering suffered by the defendant are gradually weakened as a result of the lapse of the third month, and the degree of both parties' responsibilities is no longer significant.

Therefore, in the case of the plaintiff's and the defendant's marriage, the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse is exceptionally permitted. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce has no reason to see it as a mother. 3.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is dismissed as there is no ground.

Judges already appointed