2016dward9861 Divorce

Article 00 (Lifelong in 1968)

Busan Address

Reference domicile

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

w00 (Lifelong, 1964)

Busan Address

Reference domicile

January 12, 2017

February 9, 2017

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, who went away from North Korea on July 2013, are married to the Republic of Korea on March 28, 2011 (the date of actual marriage declaration is the date of entry into the Republic of Korea) and were married to the Republic of Korea on March 28, 201, and were married to the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff left North Korea with all her husbands in North Korea, and the Defendant left North Korea with her former husbands and settled in Korea with her former husbands.

C. The Plaintiff was aware of his/her children in North Korea, and, in particular, the Defendant, with respect to his/her women who left North Korea together, had been fluent and dissatisfied with each other, that he/she was arrested in North Korea on or around July 2014. In particular, the Plaintiff’s awareness that he/she was arrested in North Korea on or around the part of the Plaintiff’s children, following conflicts related to the transfer of money necessary for life-saving activities, such as the reduction of the amount of money transferred, the amount of money transferred, and the actual place of use of the remitted money.

D. The Plaintiff: (a) claimed that the Plaintiff got a divorce counseling from a professional counselor of the Foundation while living together with one month as above; (b) obtained a divorce counseling from the professional counselor of the Foundation.

E. The plaintiff and the defendant couple worked together in the LPG charging station, and the workplace frequently failed to concentrate on performing their respective duties under the contract of multiple liability insurance, as a matter of their children, and the government's assistance was also a matter of non-management of basic livelihood.

F. Meanwhile, on March 9, 2016, from a taxi engineer who became aware of the Plaintiff’s telephone number working at the above charging station, phone calls were made to the Plaintiff at night on March 9, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not obtain an identification number but did not receive the Defendant’s phone call. After such telephone conversations, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff who was a male phone number, demanded the Plaintiff to be informed of his phone number, and the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to be informed of his phone number. The Plaintiff’s phone number was a well-known person, and the Plaintiff’s phone number was deleted from that taxi engineer, and the Defendant raised a profound dispute in pursuing the relationship with the Plaintiff.

G. Since then, although the Plaintiff was subject to the intention and wrong regarding the instant telephone case between the Defendant, the Defendant, without relianceing on the Plaintiff, retired from the work of the LPG charging station, and did not communicate with each other, and the meals were used separately. In addition, during the dispute between the Plaintiff and the police sent to the police upon the Plaintiff’s report.

H. Since then, the conflict continued, the plaintiff and the defendant couple filed an application for confirmation of the intention of divorce on March 18, 2016, and the defendant was absent on the confirmation date and thus withdrawn. The plaintiff's house was separated from the defendant around the new hearing for confirmation of the intention of divorce.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a number, if any)

Entry of investigation reports by private officers, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination

In addition to the fact that the defendant does not want a divorce but does not endeavor to improve the relationship with the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's marital relationship with the plaintiff was no longer broken to the extent that it can no longer be recovered.

In addition, the plaintiff's personal Handphone number is not well known to customers using the charging station so that the defendant's marital relationship may cause the defendant's doubt, but there is a considerable error in the defendant's response to the defendant's situation where the plaintiff's personal Handphone number is too high, and the plaintiff's personal Handphone number is too high, and the defendant's response to the defendant's situation where the plaintiff's personal Handphone number is too high.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the marriage was broken down due to the mistake of both the plaintiff and his own children while giving priority to the conflict, even though the plaintiff's children did not escape from the U.S. and their children did not take care of each other, in the case where the plaintiff's children did not escape from the U.S., and the defendant's children were able to adapt to different different locations in the ideology system, social environment, and living environment as a new citizen of the Republic of Korea, which is difficult to escape, and the plaintiff's children did not go to the contrary. The above reason constitutes a cause for judicial divorce as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Sang-sung