209Dhap1583 Divorce, etc.

Reference (xxxx -xxx)

Busan Jinjin-gu 00 - 0000 apartment

Dong-dong

Gyeong-dong, Ha-dong, Gyeong-dong 00 00

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

송○ ( xXXXXX - XXXXXxx )

Busan Jinjin-gu 00 - 0000 apartment

Dong-dong

-00 00 Do-dong, Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong

Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

À DQ ( XXXXXX - XXXXXXX )

Busan Jinjin-gu 00 - 0000 apartment

Dong-gu Do-gu

Gyeong-dong, Ha-dong, Gyeong-dong 00 00

May 26, 2011

June 16, 201

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 plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,00,00 won as consolation money, and 5% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint to the day of this judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and shall execute the procedure of registration of transfer of ownership to the father-Dongsan as stated in the separate sheet as division of property, and shall pay 128, 69,000 won per annum from the day following the day of complete payment to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall be appointed as the person with parental authority and the guardian of the principal of this case. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,50,00 won as the child support of the principal of this case and 20% per annum from the day following the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

가 . 원고와 피고는 초등학교 동창으로서 피고가 일본에서 유학 중이던 2001 . 경 원고 가 인터넷 ' & ■■■■■ 사이트를 통해 연락하여 교제를 시작하게 되었고 2005 . 12 . 18 . 결혼식을 올리고 동거를 하다가 2006 . 6 . 29 . 혼인신고를 하였으며 그 사이에 사건 본인을 자녀로 두고 있다 .

나 . 원고는 주식회사 ♤☆☆☆에서 근무하다가 2008 . 말경부터 ♣○수산에서 근무하 면서 수산물 운송 및 판매를 하고 있고 피고는 결혼 전 2000 . 4 . 10 . 경 일본으로 유학 을 가 쥬얼리코디네이터 과정 등을 공부하였고 결혼 이후 ♣○대학교 ▶ 학원 에 지원하여 입학하였으나 사건본인의 양육 문제로 고민하다가 한 달여만에 그만 두었 으며 2008 . 3 . 17 . 경부터 ◈▲▲▲▲▲ ▲ 학원에서 보석감정 , 감별 실직자국비지원과정 을 다녀 2008 . 6 . 30 . 경 쥬얼리코디네이터 3급 자격을 취득하고 2008 . 9 . 29 . 경에는 한 국보석감정사 자격을 취득하게 되었다 .

C. On November 20, 2006, the Plaintiff’s division purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) in the name of the Defendant around November 20, 2006.

D. Around May 207, the Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in a dispute with the Defendant while coming to marriage. Around May 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made a minor dispute with the Defendant on the way to grow up with the back movable property, and made the Defendant scam and scam together with the Defendant, and caused the Plaintiff to scam with her arm’s length and arms, tea, da, etc. Around the end of October 2007, the Plaintiff 2 did not scam the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff scam was scambling with the Defendant on the floor, and kne and knebel with the Defendant’s view to disregarding the Plaintiff. On February 2, 2008, the Plaintiff did not scam the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant’s scam was scambling with the Defendant on the ground that he did not scambling the Plaintiff on the ground that he did not use the Defendant’s assault on the part of the Plaintiff.

E. Around December 2008, the Defendant was hospitalized with the Alley infection, and the Plaintiff did not nurse the Defendant, and was in incompetuous to the Defendant, such as having her friend, and having her friend and her friend. As a result, the Defendant had interfered with the Plaintiff.

F. Around January 1, 2009, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's parents agreed to divorce only with the court on February 13, 2009, when the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff's parents agreed to divorce only on the following day on the day when the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not request the defendant to file a divorce on the apartment of this case and the plaintiff did not file an application for divorce.

G. On March 18, 2009, the Defendant was hospitalized at a hospital, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the principal of this case at A, who resided in the hospital. On July 2009, the Defendant consulted the principal of this case around August 2009, and then sought the principal of this case, and had the principal of this case sought the principal of this case and had the principal of this case not locked, and had the Defendant continued to do so thereafter, and had the principal of this case been brought up again from May 9, 2010 to the present date.

H. After the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff expressed his strong intention of divorce until now, while consistently expressing his intention that the respondent does not want divorce, and the Plaintiff expressed his intention that divorce cannot be absolute even if she think of the principal of the case after both sides of the instant case have taken place.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 5, 9, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10-1 through 5, Eul evidence 16-1 through 6, Eul evidence 20-1 to 20-6, investigation report, and whole purport of oral argument.

2. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 피고가 2009 . 1 . 1 . 경 원고를 집밖으로 내쫓았고 그 후 현관 디지털키의 비밀 번호를 변경하여 원고의 귀가를 방해하였고 , 평소 원고를 배려하지 않고 무시하면서 폭행과 폭언을 하였고 집안 살림 및 자녀 양육에 소홀히 하였으며 시댁에도 잘 방문하 지 않았고 사치와 과소비를 하였으며 , 원고와 상의 없이 이 사건 아파트를 제3자에게 임대하고 인근 아파트를 임차하여 이사하고 전세보증금으로 5 , 000만 원을 대출받았으 며 거주하고 있던 아파트의 전세보증금을 원고 몰래 반환받으려고 하였고 , 2010 . 11 . 경 부터 성명불상 남자와 동거하면서 부정행위를 하고 있는 등 원 · 피고의 혼인관계는 이 와 같은 피고의 잘못으로 이미 파탄되었고 이는 민법 제840조 제1 , 3 , 4 , 6호에서 정한 이혼 사유에 해당한다고 주장한다 .

B. Determination

(1) First, "her spouse, or his/her lineal ascendant, who is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act" refers to a case where one of the parties to a marriage was subject to violence, abuse, or serious insult to such an extent that it is deemed that it would be harsh that it would be forced by the other spouse to continue the marriage relationship from his/her spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Meu1890, Feb. 27, 2004), and only the statements in evidence Nos. 5 and 11 are written, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was forced to continue the marriage relationship from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s parents were subject to violence, abuse, or serious insult to the extent that the Plaintiff’s parents are deemed harsh to force the Defendant to continue a matrimonial relationship.

(3) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant committed an unlawful act.

( 4 ) 민법 제840조 제6호에서 정한 이혼사유인 ' 기타 혼인을 계속하기 어려운 중대한 사유가 있을 때 ' 라 함은 부부간의 애정과 신뢰가 바탕이 되어야 할 혼인의 본질에 상 응하는 부부공동생활관계가 회복할 수 없을 정도로 파탄되고 그 혼인생활의 계속을 강 제하는 것이 일방 배우자에게 참을 수 없는 고통이 되는 경우를 말하는바 ( 대법원 2005 . 12 . 23 . 선고 2005므1689 판결 참조 ) , 갑 12 , 13호증의 각 기재 , 갑 6호증의 1 내지 6의 각 영상 및 이 법원의 ♥은행 , D♤은행 , ♤☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ , ♥은행 , ♥

카드 , ♥▦카드 , & ■■■보험 , ♥생명보험 , ♥♡ 생명보험 , D♤카드 , ①카드 , ■

화재보험 , ■ 생명보험 , ♠OOOOOOOO은행 , ♥▦카드 ( 2009 . 5 . 22 . 자 및 2009 . 9 . 18 . 자 ) , 소 화재보험에 대한 각 사실조회결과만으로는 피고가 원고와의 혼인생 활을 위태롭게 할 정도로 사치와 과소비를 하거나 원고와 상의 없이 거주지를 옮기고 대출을 받고 전세보증금을 반환받으려 한 사실을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 원고와 피 고의 혼인관계가 피고의 귀책사유로 인하여 회복될 수 없을 정도로 파탄되고 그 혼인 생활의 계속을 강제하는 것이 원고에게 참을 수 없는 고통이 된다고 인정할 증거가 없

(5) Rather, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was trying to exercise assault with the Defendant while frequently engaging in a dispute with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not care for the Defendant while hospitalized in the hospital, and caused the Plaintiff to make an interference with the judgment of the Plaintiff, thereby getting the Plaintiff to make efforts to resolve the conflict in the situation where the conflict deepens. On January 1, 2009, the Plaintiff did not make efforts to resolve the conflict. In addition, the Plaintiff unilaterally filed the instant lawsuit without making full efforts to recover the marital relationship with the Defendant, and the failure of the original and the Defendant’s marital relationship led to the Plaintiff’s fault.

(6) As a matter of principle, a spouse who is mainly responsible for the failure of the marital life may not file a petition for divorce with due care. However, in special circumstances where the other party is objectively clear that he/she has no intention to continue the marriage after the failure, and there is only a failure to comply with the divorce in misunderstanding or retaliation sentiment, the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse should be exceptionally acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Meu1378, Jan. 13, 2006). However, in the proceedings of this case, the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant stated that he/she had no intention to divorce consistently in the proceedings of this lawsuit and expressed his/her intention to endeavor to care for a happy family with the Defendant even though he/she did not think of the principal of this case, cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not comply with the divorce in misunderstanding or retaliation appraisal even though he/she had no intention to continue the marriage even if she had expressed his/her intention to continue the marriage.

(7) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce is without merit.

3. Determination on division of property and claim for child support

The claim for division of property and child support under the premise that the plaintiff's claim for divorce is accepted is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Sang-hoon,

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges White-in-law