2012dward8538 Divorce

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

April 30, 2014

July 2, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 2011.

B. From the beginning of the marriage, the Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently conducted a small couple fighting. On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to deposit from February 2 to the Plaintiff’s head of the Tong, but on the Defendant’s attitude that the Plaintiff would deposit from April 2, 201 due to the card price used for the preparation for marriage even though the Defendant promised to deposit from February 2 to the Plaintiff’s head of the Tong, and performed an act such as returning a marriage photograph or removing from the wall. The Defendant was able to do so due to the Plaintiff’s behavior on February 27, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot return the taxi at night due to the Plaintiff’s behavior, and the Defendant could not return the taxi at night. On this day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were seriously disputed, and the Plaintiff did so by printing a mixed document and doing so on a book.

C. However, on March 30, 2012, the Defendant directly prepared the Plaintiff’s mother’s birth day, and on April 2012.

20. In light of the above, the Plaintiff made efforts to resolve the conflict with the Plaintiff by transferring the Defendant’s monthly salary to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the dispute was still pending until the end of June 2012, but it has been making a marital life without any relatively large conflict.

D. However, at the beginning of July 2012, the Defendant came to know of the details of the Plaintiff’s settlement of the film table at the weekend using a separate national bank check card that the Defendant knew, and during that period, all revenues were deposited into the Plaintiff’s passbook and the details of revenue and expenditure were agreed to be managed in a transparent manner, but the Plaintiff caused fear of distribution on the part of the Plaintiff using the card that the Defendant knew. The Defendant followed this fact to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, on the ground that he was able to monitor himself, was divorced to the Defendant around July 22, 2012.

E. On July 25, 2012, the defendant, who had been in harmony with the plaintiff around July 25, 2012, proposed that the plaintiff reside in the defendant by the end of February 2, 2014 on the premise that the agreement has been reached between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and that the deposit for the deposit at the expiration of the period shall be collected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff suggested that the defendant will live in the apartment house that is currently in existence by the end of September 2013, and thereafter that defendant will move out without any condition to the end of September 2013. Accordingly, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's proposal and agreed temporarily to proceed with the divorce procedure by the beginning of August.

F. On July 29, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed the parents on divorce at the mother’s new place. In that place, both parents recommended the Plaintiff and the Defendant to take a grace period for one month. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to comply with the grace period.

G. Around August 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) sought to leave the Plaintiff’s birth before and after the Plaintiff’s birth; (b) however, the Plaintiff did not leave the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant was in a family-friendly relationship in the Gu and Gu during the weekend. However, the Plaintiff was in a family-friendly relationship (two male and female and one female and one female and another female) and a meeting of the university that the Defendant had a close relationship between her friendly relationship with her friendly relationship; (c) the Plaintiff’s house came back with the Plaintiff; and (d) subsequently, she excessively friendlyly friendly expressions, such as pottering the Plaintiff’s birth in the afterma and in the elevator, and kising the Plaintiff’s ties.

H. Meanwhile, the Defendant, who returned to Sundays-friendly, became aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had a drinking panty at the home between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s absence, and at the same time, visited the Plaintiff by discovering female panty in the Plaintiff’s home. Although the Plaintiff said that the Plaintiff was at the overseas business conference at the company’s home, the Plaintiff was in fact at the company’s home and returned to the Republic of Korea more than 12 weeks at night.

I. The defendant had a profound dispute with the plaintiff on the above day and had his body fighting fighting, such as cutting the plaintiff's clothes and arms.

(j) On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to divorce on the condition that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 120,000 to the Defendant, but the Defendant refused this and failed to proceed to a divorce procedure.

(k) The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and wanting to divorce with the defendant, while the defendant does not want to divorce with the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1, 3-2, 5-1 through 10, 5-1, 6-1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12-1 through 27, 14-1 through 3, 15, 19-1 through 8, 21-1 through 4, 1-2, 2-1, 2-1 through 2-12, 2-1 through 12, 7-1, 7-2, 8, 8, 9, 10, 13-1 through 27, 14-1 through 3, 15, 19-1 through 8, 21-1 through 4, 2-1, 2-1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's failure of marriage has resulted in the failure of marriage by maximizeing conflicts between husband and wife through an extreme speech and behavior in a dispute which occurred from the beginning of the marriage, and that this constitutes grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

The term "if 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, "if there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue a marriage," means the case where a marital relation corresponding to the essence of a marriage which should be based on a ties and trust between husband and wife has broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and compelling the continuance of a marital life has become irrecoverable pain for one spouse. In determining this, the existence of a party's intention to continue a marriage, the existence of a party's liability for a cause of a failure of marriage, the period of marital life, the existence of a child, the party's age, the guarantee of livelihood after a divorce, and all other circumstances of a marital relationship shall be taken into consideration (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu1067, Jul. 9, 191; 201Meu3037, Feb. 23, 2012).

In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and the purport of the argument as a whole, the Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently experienced disputes during the period of marriage, and in particular, it seems that the trust may be significantly damaged by referring to divorce whenever they are placed in a marital fighting. However, in light of the circumstances where the Defendant does not want divorce, it is difficult to readily conclude that the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover.

Even if the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has broken down, in our legal system that adopts the principle of due diligence as to judicial divorce, even if there are grounds for divorce under each subparagraph of Article 840 of the Civil Act, if the other spouse is mainly responsible for the dissolution of the marriage than the other spouse who caused the above grounds for divorce, the other spouse may not file a claim for divorce on the grounds of the above grounds for divorce (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Meu1078, Apr. 23, 1993). However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff refused to communicate with the defendant, such as reducing the conflict with the defendant from the beginning of the marriage to the point of marriage or returning marriage photographs, and demanding the defendant to manage his own income together with his/her own income, but in particular, it damages the trust of the defendant by doing contradictory acts, such as using a separate credit card, etc., regardless of his/her knowledge of the defendant, and in particular, on August 2012.

24. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who was aware of the fact that he was friendly with the Defendant, was friendly with the female panty, and was in custody of the female panty in the family, was in violation of the duty of good faith between the husband and the wife, and the Plaintiff, who was unilaterally demanded divorce rather than seeking to recover the Defendant’s trust, has the principal responsibility.

However, in exceptional cases where special circumstances exist, such as that the other party’s spouse is not in compliance with a divorce in a clerical error or retaliation, even though it is objectively evident that the other party’s spouse has no intention to continue the marriage after the failure of the marriage relationship (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Meu1033, Sept. 24, 2004; 2004Meu1033, Dec. 12, 2010).

9. Although the Plaintiff agreed to divorce on the condition that the Defendant would receive KRW 1.5 million around September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would refuse divorce only on the surface of money for the purpose of payment without the intention to continue marriage, such as sending a certificate of content that the Defendant would be able to divorce only with the payment of KRW 1.5 million, even though it is objectively obvious that the Defendant does not have any intention to marry, it is difficult to view that the Defendant did not comply with divorce in a clerical or retaliation appraisal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee fixed-term