Applicable law in a divorce lawsuit instituted against the father of the United States of America

The applicable law to the case where the wife of Korean nationality files a divorce suit against the father who is the U.S. citizen of the U.S. Pursuant to the provisions of the main sentence of Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws Act, the law of the Republic of Korea is the law of the Republic of Korea, which is the law of the Republic of Korea. Since the United States is a country different according to the local law, the law of the Republic of Korea, which is a local area added pursuant to Article 2 (3) of the Conflict of Laws Act, should be applied. However, in the case of the United States, according to the general principle of the conflict of Laws as to divorce recognized by the precedents and theories, the jurisdiction is recognized at the domicile of either spouse and the law of the suspension of law is recognized as the applicable law. Accordingly, if the wife has a domicile under the United States law, the Korean Civil Code is the applicable law in accordance with the

Article 2, Article 4, and Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws

○ ○

Maglymoride ○

The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 and the testimony of non-party 1 as well as the whole purport of the pleadings, since the plaintiff of the Republic of Korea nationality and the defendant, who is the citizen of the Republic of Korea, are recognized to have married on December 22, 1989, the claim for divorce of this case belongs to the so-called conflict of law in Seoul. Thus, examining the jurisdiction over this case first, as well as the plaintiff's home country and home country of domicile, the defendant abandons the plaintiff, and as seen later, the jurisdiction over this case shall be over the Republic of Korea, which is the plaintiff's home country and home country of domicile, and there is no general forum of the defendant who is the husband in Korea, and under Articles 25 and 3 of the former Personnel Litigation Act (repealed from January 1, 1991), the family court at the seat of the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction (Article 5 of the Addenda of the Family Litigation Act).

Furthermore, the law of nationality of the defendant, who is the husband, under the provisions of the main sentence of Article 18 of the Conflict of Law, applies to the divorce case of this case, is the law of nationality of the defendant, that is, the law of nationality of the United States of America. Since the United States of America is a country different according to the local law, the law of nationality of the defendant should be applied pursuant to Article 2 (3) of the Conflict of Law. However, in the case of the United States of America, according to the general principles of the conflict of Law as to divorce recognized by precedents and theories, the law of suspension is recognized as the law of law at the same time (Article 2 (2) of the Conflict of Law, conflict with the law of law, secondnd, Confict Law, Article 71 and Article 285 of the Conflict of Law of the Republic of Korea). Accordingly, according to the above evidence No. 2 of the United States of America, the plaintiff can be recognized as the law of permanent residence of the Republic of Korea until the birth of the plaintiff.

Therefore, in full view of the whole purport of pleading as to the existence of the grounds for divorce of this case, the defendant, as a U.S. citizen who returned to Korea at the time of the above marriage, decided to leave the U.S. to the U.S. within three months after the marriage. The defendant, without having to think of departure, sought money from the Republic of Korea to the plaintiff and even sought money from the plaintiff, and even though he did not have any contact with the plaintiff, he left the U.S. around July 190, 190.

Therefore, the defendant has abandoned the plaintiff in bad faith, and this constitutes a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Code, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case is justified and decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Dong-con (Presiding Judge)