2016Dhap502 Divorce, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

April 5, 2018

May 10, 2018

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The plaintiff shall be divorced by the defendant. The defendant shall be the plaintiff, 30,000,000 won as consolation money, and the plaintiff's objection thereto.

The interest rate of 15% per annum shall be paid from the day following the Supreme Court Decision to the day of full payment; and

2/3 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet as a result of division of property

The procedures for the registration of ownership transfer shall be implemented, and 140,000,000 won shall be paid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 3, 1974, and have adult children between them.

B. From 1975 to 1975, the Plaintiff was serving as a technician in Korean power and went away from his workplace in 1991, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was operating a bus to commute to and from work. The Defendant has been in charge of domestic affairs and childcare.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s mother from around 1995 to May 2008 when the Plaintiff’s mother died. The Plaintiff continued to engage in an unlawful act during the marriage period, and the Plaintiff was frequently in conflict with the Defendant on the grounds of such an act.

D. The plaintiff and the defendant currently reside together in 00 apartment units in the Slundong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, but they use each room for not less than 10 years and have a different meal.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), family affairs investigator's report, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant was neglected at home, the Plaintiff’s mother and the Plaintiff’s mother were frequently treated, and the Plaintiff’s father and the Plaintiff’s mother were unfairly treated, and the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant became extremely difficult to maintain due to the failure of marriage. Thus, it constitutes a cause for judicial divorce as prescribed by Articles 840 subparag. 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

1) As to the existence of grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 2, 3, and 4 of the Civil Act

The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9, 13, and 17 alone, are insufficient to readily conclude that the defendant abandons the plaintiff in bad faith, or that the plaintiff or his lineal ascendant was extremely maltreated by the defendant (in addition, even if the defendant rendered unfair treatment to the plaintiff's mother, this is prior to 10 years).

2) With respect to the existence of 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 the marriage, which is a reason 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 the marriage" means the case where the communal living relationship corresponding to the essence of the marriage which should be based on difficulties and trust between the married couple has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover, and enforcing the continuation of the marital life becomes irrecoverable for one spouse. In determining this, the existence of intention to continue the marriage, the existence of the party's responsibility for the cause of failure, the period of marital life, the existence of children, the age of the party, the guarantee of livelihood after the divorce, and all other circumstances of the marital relationship shall be taken into consideration (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Meu130, May 27, 1994; 207Meu1690, Dec. 14, 2007)

In the instant case, in full view of the developments leading up to conflict between the couple and the couple as revealed in the above recognition, and the form of community life, the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have been broken down. The liability for the failure of marriage is examined as to the liability for the failure of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, who avoided efforts to recover the relationship even though they provided the cause of conflict between the husband and wife by having committed continuous misconduct during the marriage period. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce of this case constitutes a claim for divorce between the responsible spouse, and the Defendant is only not in response to the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce in misunderstanding or retaliation sentiment, or the Plaintiff’s liability does not remain to the extent that

It may not be deemed to constitute a case where there are any circumstances.

Therefore, in the case of this case, since the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse is exceptionally permitted, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is not justified as one mother.

3. Determination on the claim of consolation money and the claim of division of property

As long as the plaintiff's claim for divorce is rejected, the consolation money and the claim for division of property premised on divorce are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judges Cho Jae-sung

Judges Lee E-young