2015drid10512 Divorce, etc.

NewA (************ 2************))

Busan East-gu

Ulsan District in the place of registration:

Attorney Lee Do-young

GangwonB (**************************))

Busan East-gu

reference domicile Gyeong-nam

(************************))

The domicile and reference domicile shall be the same as the defendant.

April 21, 2016

June 23, 2016

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

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

The plaintiff shall be divorced from the defendant. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,00,000 won as consolation money, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and guardian for the principal of this case. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 600,000 won as consolation money as of the last day of each month from the day the judgment of this case became final to the day when the principal of this case reaches the majority.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant were living together from November 26, 2006 and they were married under the law that reported marriage on January 17, 2008, and have the principal of the case under the chain.

B. On July 2014, the Plaintiff was living separately with the Defendant, and the principal of the case is currently raising the Defendant.

[Identification Evidence] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including a number, if any)

(2) The mediation action report of the officer, the purport of the entire pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that during the marriage period, the defendant neglected to pay a share investment to his family and neglected or neglected the time that he gets together with his family while giving rise to the failure of his family. The plaintiff did not perform his duty to support excessive debts due to the business deterioration of the head of the house operated by the defendant, thereby causing the plaintiff's living in the workplace to compensate for living expenses. The plaintiff's failure of home economy and excessive stock investment caused the defendant's death of the plaintiff and the defendant's marriage caused the failure of the defendant's marriage. The plaintiff's wrong judgment as mentioned above constitutes a judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 and 6 of the Civil Act, and thus, the defendant's claim for divorce and the judgment as stated in the claim for divorce are sought.

3. Determination

A. Whether there are grounds for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code

The term "B" when the spouse, who is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code, was extremely maltreated by the spouse, who is a reason for divorce, refers to the case where force to continue the marriage relationship was committed, abused, or insultd to the extent that it is deemed harsh (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Meu1890, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was involved in, or escaped from, stock investment to the extent that the Defendant could interfere with the normal home life or the continuation of communal living relationship between the father and the father, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. In addition, it is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff’s negligence or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was harsh to force the continuation of the marriage relationship from the Defendant during the marriage period, and received violence, abuse, or insult to the extent equivalent thereto, or was treated unfairly.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce based on the judicial divorce claim under Article 840 (3) of the Civil Code is without merit.

B. Whether there exists a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code

1) A marriage is a community which is mentally, mentally, physically, and economically combined for the purpose of a common life of one’s lives based on patriotic and trust, and the married couple is obligated to live together, support, and cooperate with each other (Article 826(1) of the Civil Act). In addition, in the course of married life, the married couple shall have the best ability to maintain the marital life by understanding and protecting the other party by petling, good faith, and human life. In addition, in the event that there are many circumstances that may be obstacles to the marital life, the married couple shall make every effort to overcome such obstacles, and shall not engage in any act causing failure of the marital life on the grounds that there are circumstances that impede harmony between the lump sum couple.

Meanwhile, "When there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue a marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act" means the case where a marital relationship according to the essence of a marriage that should be based on the difficulty and trust between husband and wife has broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and it becomes impossible for one spouse to continue the marital life. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue a marriage, the existence of a party to a failure in bankruptcy, the period of marital life, the existence of children, the age of the parties, the guarantee of livelihood after divorce, and all other circumstances of the marital relationship shall be taken into consideration (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Meu130, May 27, 1994; 2007Meu1690, Dec. 14, 2007, etc.).

2) Upon considering the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (if ...) and Gap evidence Nos. 6, family affairs investigator's report and arguments, the defendant operated *****'s work in the vicinity of the Geumdong-gu Busan High School before marriage with the plaintiff 2, since it was difficult to operate the above head office Nos. 1, 01, and the defendant discontinued the above 2's daily life with the defendant 1, 000's daily life * 1,000's daily life * 4,000's daily life * 1,000's daily life * 4,000's daily life * 4,000's daily life * 4,000's daily life * by the plaintiff 4,000's daily life *.

As can be known in the above facts, the defendant continued to operate a head office, main office, etc. until the marriage closes down ******'s trade name. Since the defendant was employed on a daily basis at several construction sites in order to punish living expenses, etc. even after the closure of the head office above, it cannot be deemed that the defendant failed to fulfill his duty of support as the most. Even if the defendant was operating a head office to support his family and the defendant's family community was faced with difficulties, it cannot be caused by the defendant's fault. Further, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was deprived of his share investment to the extent that it interferes with the normal family life or the continuation of the marital relationship, and that the husband and wife were a combination of communities with physical, physical, and ordinary living, and cooperate with each other after the closure of the head office above, and that there is no economic difficulty for the plaintiff to support his family as the defendant's living environment. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the defendant did not suffer from employment difficulties.

On the other hand, considering the above facts as well as the overall purport of the family investigator's conciliation action report and arguments, the plaintiff and the defendant appear to have maintained an economically difficult condition during the marriage period. Moreover, the defendant's time to go out of the daily-centered life and not with the plaintiff and the principal of the case, and the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant is increased, and the plaintiff and the defendant are expected to understand and find out their addresses well rather than resolving the conflict as dialogue and compromise. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case and publicly notifies the intention of divorce with the defendant, it is difficult to view that the defendant's marital relationship has been broken down.

However, in the process of responding to the plaintiff's claim in this case, the defendant sees that his body and mind were not well known to the plaintiff. The defendant shows his wrong part to the plaintiff. The defendant takes care of the plaintiff's principal of the case at 8 years old age after the plaintiff's leaving home and her return to the plaintiff together with the principal of the case. In addition, the defendant in this case wanting to receive counseling from a professional counselor, and the court orders the plaintiff to take conciliation measures. The plaintiff was consulted with the above couple. The defendant continued to take care of the defendant's responsibility for supporting the above couple and the raising of the principal of the case. The defendant seems to have worked for the plaintiff to seek work in a line consistent with the defendant's responsibility for raising the principal of the case, and even if the plaintiff did not have any other marital relationship with the principal of the case, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff continued to have a marital relationship with the principal of the case at the age of 3 to 4 years after leaving home, and it is difficult to see that the defendant's marital relationship with the principal of this case and other circumstances.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce based on the claim for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code cannot be seen as "if there is a serious reason to make it difficult to continue the marriage". Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce based on the claim for judicial divorce is not reasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and all of them shall be accepted as the plaintiff's claim for divorce, and the claim for designation of person with parental authority and custodian and the claim for childcare expenses under the premise that the plaintiff's claim for divorce shall be accepted as the plaintiff's claim for divorce

Judges Park Sang-sung