2009uu000 Divorce, etc.

A man who has been born for 70 years;

70 Women of age 70

98 Womens of 19

Seoul Family Court Decision 2008Ddan*** Decision * on August 14, 2009

April 9, 2010

April 23, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced. The plaintiff shall be a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal

B. The defendant shall designate 500,000 won per month as the child support of the principal of the case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant had a 7-year deadly married couple who completed the marriage report on June 1, 1996, and had the principal of the case as a child between them.

B. The Plaintiff demanded a divorce to the Defendant on several occasions on the grounds that the characteristics of the Defendant are not consistent with the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff was late at the date of the company, and was unable to send time together with his family at the end of the week. As such, the Defendant was fully in charge of raising the principal of the case with his family. For the principal of the case where the Plaintiff was unable to travel with his family, the Defendant sent the principal of the case with his family and went together with his family.

D. On August 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were disputing each other, and the Plaintiff was investigated by the police upon the Defendant’s report, and the Defendant was withdrawn from the complaint and sent to the prosecution without the right of prosecution, and the case was concluded.

E. After the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are living separately from the Plaintiff, by taking room on May 6, 2008, which was the date of the instant lawsuit.

F. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have no marital relationship for about five years prior to the lapse of five years.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the inquiry result of the Seoul Central Franc Chief of the Seoul Central District Court of the first instance, investigation report by family affairs investigators, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Part on the claim for divorce

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, without almost few days of the establishment of the family and the principal of the case, wasted economically on several occasions, through a series of overseas trips, etc., and went home on several occasions. In addition, the difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is so large that it is difficult to achieve a decent family as well as there is no marital relationship for more than five years, and thus, the marriage of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was actually broken down to the extent that the marriage of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was unable to be recovered any longer due to the Defendant’s mistake as above, and the above mistake by the Defendant constitutes grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

First of all, it is difficult to view that the marriage relationship was broken down solely on the above facts, in light of the following: (a) there is a somewhat different nature between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is a little difference between the plaintiff and the defendant; (b) there is no marital relation since five years ago; and (c) the plaintiff left the house on May 6, 2008; (d) although the plaintiff and the defendant have been married to the principal of the case at the end of the period of a year of a year of a year, they maintained the marriage relationship for a period of 14 years to close the principal of the case at the end of the period of a year of a year of a birth; and (e) there is a conflict between either husband and the defendant due to a difference of character.

Even if the marriage was broken down, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, even if the principal of the case did not look at the place of the business and did not see the case itself, was wasted economically due to overseas travel, etc. over several times and without any justifiable reason. Moreover, the mere fact that there was a difference of character or there was no marital relationship for five years, cannot be deemed as a serious reason that makes it impossible to continue the marriage. Rather, the principal liability seems to be a continuous demand for divorce on the ground that there was a difference between the Defendant and the principal of the case, and the Plaintiff unilaterally settled.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, because the plaintiff's claim for divorce and the designation of a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority under the premise of divorce are just, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit

Judge Ansan-ro of the presiding judge

Judges Kim Jong-Un

Judges credit affairs