본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
부산가정법원 2018드단202213 판결

2018Ddan20213 Divorce and Division of Property


A person shall be appointed.


A person shall be appointed.

Conclusion of Pleadings

August 28, 2018

Imposition of Judgment

September 18, 2018


1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced from the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 50 million won as division of property and 15% interest per annum from the date of the final decision to the date of full payment.


1. The plaintiff's assertion

Around 2003, the Plaintiff suffered economic difficulties due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of construction business, and the husband’s death was written at the time of gold. Among them, the Defendant, as seen above, lives separately from each Defendant’s room without any studio, as well as the preparation of meals, and mamadi. The Plaintiff is unable to maintain the marital life with the Defendant, such as the Plaintiff’s home and home and staying separately for a long time. As such, there are grounds for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act in the marriage life of the Defendant and the Defendant.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 1981, the plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who reported a marriage, and have two adult daughters.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any economic difficulties, such as making a living with the Plaintiff’s income and raising their children, etc. from the time of marriage to the time of 199.

다 . 원고는 1999년경 다른 사람과 함께 건설회사를 설립하여 운영하다가 2003년경 사업에 실패하였고 , 이후 원고가 건축사무소에서 받는 수입 대부분이 압류되어 경제적 으로 어려움을 겪자 , 피고가 식당 , 병원 급식소 등에서 일용직으로 근무하며 가정살림 을 보탰다 .

D. The Plaintiff, without any particular reason, went home on May 201 and did not communicate to the Defendant, and the Defendant heard the awareness that he suffered a large amount of images in the restaurant that he worked around September 2016, and returned home around that time.

E. However, on July 2010, the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act, such as sexual intercourse, while teaching with around 00.

F. On September 15, 2016, 00, on the day and following the day of the prosecution, there was a debate with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was punished for a brupty of the Defendant’s house, following this, and the Defendant did not comply with the demand for the eviction and refused to leave. During that period, the Defendant was found to have committed only 00 square meters or fraudulent acts with the Plaintiff.

G. After that, the Defendant’s continuous phone call had been made to the Defendant, and if the Defendant neglected this, the Defendant sent a door to the effect that he will continue to observe the Defendant’s office and will harm the Defendant and his family members, and made it difficult for the Defendant and his family members by sending up to a number of times a day. Accordingly, the Defendant and his great father and wife were subject to a decision of prohibition of access and provisional injunction against the 00 visitors.

H. On November 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around November 20, 2016, on the Plaintiff’s cell phone, notified the Plaintiff of who was the Plaintiff; and (b) carried out vagabonds; (c) the interesting Plaintiff abused the Defendant; and (d) the employees of the apartment guard company who carried out the Madern patrol were the Plaintiff and the situation was terminated.

I. The plaintiff requested the defendant to change the amount of KRW 100 million in return for the hedge 00, and the defendant refused to do so and again returned to the defendant.

j. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for damages claim against the plaintiff 00 until the plaintiff returned again due to 00. On January 11, 2018, the above court sentenced the plaintiff 00 to pay consolation money of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(k) On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the instant divorce, etc., and the Defendant expressed his/her intent to think of his/her children and grandchildren, and to return to the home.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1, 2, 4, 5 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 through 27, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s marital life have a serious reason for making it difficult to continue the marriage under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, which the Plaintiff claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, in light of the above facts, even if the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, has reached the failure of marriage as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the cause of the failure was the principal responsibility for the Plaintiff, while maintaining a wrongful relationship with the Plaintiff, who left the wife and his children.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is a responsible spouse, cannot file a claim for divorce on account of the circumstances as alleged in the claim. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is obviously obvious that the Defendant does not intend to continue the marriage, but does not comply with the divorce in clerical or retaliation sentiment, or the Plaintiff’s accountability does not remain to the extent of rejecting the claim for divorce.

It is difficult to see that the case falls under the circumstances.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it appears to be one copy and there is no reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.


Judges already appointed