[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney above-at-law)

January 27, 2010

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Ra1286 Decided August 31, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 2, and 3-1 and 2, respectively, in full view of the purport of all pleadings.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who entered a wedding and living together on February 1958 and completed the marriage report on April 9, 1959.

B. In 1964, the Plaintiff left the Defendant, who is a wife in the Plaintiff’s home located in the ○○○○○-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, 1964, and was married to Seoul. Since that time, the Plaintiff was living together with the Nonparty 1 (Supreme Court Decision), and had Nonparty 2, 3, and 4-3 children among them. However, these three children were married between July 7, 1994 and December 28, 2002 and formed a family.

C. The Defendant supported the ASEAN at the Plaintiff’s home located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-do, and has been living there until now.

2. Determination

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim, and the defendant did not give birth to his child during the marriage period, and the plaintiff and the defendant have been married for 44 years from 1964 to 44 years since 1964, and the marriage has already ceased. The plaintiff is seeking a divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant.

As acknowledged earlier, in full view of the fact that the period of separation between the plaintiff and the defendant, who is the husband and the defendant, is 44 years or more, and that the plaintiff strongly demanded the divorce with the defendant, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is deemed to have reached a failure to the extent that it is impossible to recover.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff, a wife, provided a direct cause for the failure of marriage by having another woman living together with giving birth to the child; and (b) the Defendant, who supported the domicile of the Plaintiff located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-do, by having left the Plaintiff’s home and had provided a minimum support duty as her husband, who did not perform his/her duty to support the domicile of the child but the Defendant did not have given birth to the child; (c) it is determined that the principal liability of the failure of marriage is the Plaintiff. Furthermore, in light of the purpose and good faith pursued by the marriage system and the principle of trust and good faith, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s liability is not serious to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce. In fact, it is difficult to find out any special circumstance, such as that the Defendant did not comply with the divorce in writing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)