2015drid10826 Divorce

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

Busan Address

Busan place of service

reference domicile Gyeong-nam

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

Busan Address

reference domicile Gyeong-nam

December 9, 2015

December 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against 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 June 9, 1981, and have one male and female between them.

B. On September 2014, 2014, the Defendant returned home to the Plaintiff, but returned home to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2015, and stated that the Plaintiff did not want to proceed to divorce with the Plaintiff, considering the Plaintiff’s health (refence of the captain’s cancer) or his/her child before marriage.

[Ground of recognition] The statements of partially consistent - Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On September 2014, the Defendant: (a) went to live with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who did not want to live in the Defendant; and (b) deserted the Plaintiff for about ten months; and (c) such act constitutes a serious reason for which it is difficult to continue the marriage of the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (d) the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has already disappeared.

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who is the guardian, has a claim for judicial divorce against the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Whether grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act (the malicious abandonment) are recognized

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant maliciously abandoned the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. (In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any other contact to the Defendant even though he knew of the Defendant’s residence and workplace, and it was recognized that the Defendant did not have any other contact with the Defendant even though he knew of all of the Defendant’s residence and workplace).

(b) Whether grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act (when there exists a serious reason that makes it difficult to continue the marriage), are recognized;

"When there is a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage, which is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act" means the case where the marital relationship corresponding to the essence of the marriage, which should be based on difficulties and trust between the couple, has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover and compelling the continuation of the marital life, becomes an unreceptable pain for one spouse. In determining this, the existence of the intention to continue the marriage, the existence of the party's liability for the cause of failure, the period of marital life, the existence of the child, the age of the party concerned, the guarantee of livelihood after the divorce, and other circumstances of the marital relationship, shall be taken into consideration, and it shall be recognized that the marital relationship of the couple has ceased to exist to the extent that the marital relationship of the couple cannot be recovered (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu10670 delivered on July 9, 191, Supreme Court Decision 94Meu130 delivered on May 27, 1994).

In light of the above facts and evidence, the following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① the Defendant’s error of choosing the method of running away after the dispute with the Plaintiff, but there are circumstances to consider the situation of leaving the house, and currently living at the place of residence. ② The Defendant provided extremely advanced care to the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s inception with the captain’s inception with the Plaintiff, ② the Defendant consistently stated that the Plaintiff’s inception with the Plaintiff’s inception with the Plaintiff’s inception with the Plaintiff’s inception with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s inception with the Plaintiff’s inception of the marriage, ③ the period of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was reached 35 years, and the period of the Plaintiff’s inception with the Defendant remains one year, ④ the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s inception with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s inception of the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s living.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges already appointed