beta
Cases
2017dward201091 Divorce
Plaintiff
A (1954.000)
Busan Address
Busan District Court
Attorney Lee Do-young
Defendant
B. (1948 no longer than 1948)
The domicile and reference domicile are the same as the plaintiff.
Place of service
Conclusion of Pleadings
November 30, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
December 21, 2017
Text
1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Purport of claim
The order is as set forth in the text.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including the number of branches where there are numbers), the plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report around July 1979 and have three adult children under the sleep, the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant, around 1987 on the ground that the plaintiff purchased labor to listen to the plaintiff's children without the defendant and the defendant's children, and the plaintiff and the defendant have a large number of fuls with the plaintiff and the defendant's husband after the plaintiff's separation from the main family and caused the plaintiff's first and second children only.
Third, during the marriage period of the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.
2. Determination
In full view of the following facts: (a) the original facts leading up to the above recognition; (b) the Defendant’s husband and wife are completely separate from the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant did not make a serious effort to recover the relationship with the Plaintiff even without wanting to obtain a divorce, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s marital relationship was broken down to the extent that it would no longer be recoverable due to the Defendant’s mistake above; and (d) the Defendant’s marital relationship is a cause for judicial divorce as prescribed by Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act.
Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.
3. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges
Judges Park Sang-sung