2015Dhap314 Divorce, etc.

Man 00

Busan Address

Busan District Court

Law Firm Doz.

Kim 00

Seoul Address

Seoul Place of Service

Busan District Court

Law Firm Doz.

September 22, 2016

October 27, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on March 23, 2016 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

2. The costs of lawsuit incurred after the completion of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced from the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,00,00 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment. It shall pay 521, 478,700 won and 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of final decision to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall be divorced from the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff, 286, 978, and 700 won interest per annum from the day of delivery of a copy of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment, and with respect to the property division of this case, 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of complete payment of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000 per annum 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the claim of this case and the written application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment. Property division, KRW 286, 978, 700, and these amounts.

In this regard, 15% interest per annum shall be paid from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment, and the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the division of property shall be implemented with respect to the real estate in the attached list No. 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff married with the Defendant on August 1, 1980.

B. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking divorce, etc. with the Defendant. On March 15, 2016, the instant lawsuit pending in the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff signed and sealed the Defendant’s name on the written withdrawal of the lawsuit containing the content of the withdrawal of the instant lawsuit. The Defendant submitted the written withdrawal of the lawsuit to this court on March 22, 2016, and submitted the written consent of the withdrawal of the lawsuit to this court on March 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), records obvious facts, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the validity of the withdrawal of the instant lawsuit

According to the above review, the instant lawsuit was withdrawn on March 23, 2016, barring any other special circumstances.

Accordingly, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had no mental capacity at the time of signing the instant written withdrawal of the lawsuit, the fact that the Plaintiff was suffering from Albane disease at the time of filing and withdrawing the lawsuit, but the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff had the mental capacity at the time of filing the lawsuit in this case, and the Plaintiff also expressed his intent to divorce after attending the court on May 11, 2016, which was after submitting the instant written withdrawal. On the other hand, considering the fact that there was no material to deem that the Plaintiff’s disease aggravated at the time of filing the lawsuit in this case, and that there was no material to deem that the Plaintiff’s mental capacity aggravated at the time of filing the lawsuit in this case, the evidence submitted to this court alone cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case was signed and delivered by the defendant's deception and coercion, and thus, it is invalid. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim its invalidation or revocation on the ground of the defect of expression of intent as a procedural act taking action against the defendant, and the evidence submitted to this court alone is insufficient to recognize that there was deception and coercion at the time of preparation of the lawsuit in this case, and the plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

If so, the instant lawsuit was lawfully concluded on March 23, 2016 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Do-constition

Judges Park Jong-hee

Judges Cho Jae-sung