In a case where Party A claimed a divorce, etc. by asserting that the marital relationship between Party B and Party B was no longer able to recover due to the grounds for which Party B was responsible, the case holding that it is insufficient to recognize that Party B and Party B’s marital relationship was no longer due to the grounds for which Party B and Party B are responsible

In a case where Party A filed for divorce, etc. by asserting that the marriage relationship against Party B, as the grounds for the responsibility of Party B, was no longer able to recover, the case holding that the marriage relationship between Party A and Party B is insufficient to recognize that Party B and Party B was broken due to the reasons for which Party B and Party B were responsible, in light of the following: (a) although Party B violated or emotionally satisfyed, the conflict between Party B and Party B was aggravated by responding to their own standards, criticism and criticism, and violence methods; (b) Party A, while taking the issues of raising children and house care for both Party B and Party B; and (c) Party A and Party are satisfying their own roles as husband and father; (d) while Party A and Party are currently taking advantage of their respective roles, trust relationship is likely to be satisfy with Party B while residing in one house for the deepening period of conflict, and thus, there is room for reasonable resolution of Party B and Party B’s current situation.

Article 840 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Song-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Principal 1 et al.

March 4, 2015

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 with the defendant. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won as consolation money and 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the pronouncement of the judgment of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 574.8 million won as division of property and 20% interest per annum from the day following the conclusion of the judgment of this case to the day of full payment. The plaintiff shall be designated as the person in parental authority and custodian of the principal of this case. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 million won per month from the date of the decision of this case to November 17, 2016, and from the next day to August 6, 2018, the amount calculated at the rate of 500,000 won per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Marriage and children: Marriage Report on April 6, 1996, and the principal of the case is a child.

(b) Procedure and present status of marital life;

1) In around 1995, the Plaintiff and the Defendant joined the Plaintiff’s association with the introduction of Defendant 1, who worked at the Plaintiff’s office, such as the Plaintiff, and began the marriage life on April 6, 1996.

2) 원고는 결혼 1년 후 원고의 형이 운영하는 건축 회사로 이직하면서 퇴근시간이 늦어졌고, 주말에도 출근하는 경우가 많게 되었는데, 전업주부였던 피고는 원고가 가정일에 대한 자신의 역할과 책임을 등한시하고, 모든 가정일을 피고의 책임으로 전가하는 것을 힘들어하였고, 원고는 매사에 비난하고 가르치려는 듯한 피고의 태도와 가정에서 소외되어 냉대받는다는 느낌에 힘들어하였다. 일례로 원고가 저녁 먹기 전에 퇴근한다고 전화하면 피고는 “왜 밥 안 먹고 올 때만 전화하느냐?”며 서운함을 토로하였고, 피고가 감정이 격해지면 저녁밥이 있냐고 물어보는 원고에게 “댁은 손이 없어 발이 없어?”라고 하였으며, 자녀들과 피고가 함께 밥을 먹으면서도 원고에게 식사할 것을 권유하지도 않고 “왕따 당하니 어떠냐?”고 힐난하기도 하였다.

3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently disputed the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant principal could go beyond the floor of the bath room where the instant principal was dissatised, as the Plaintiff did not open a shower room after having the shower room in the ward room. However, since around 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant got the Plaintiff to use the bath room for the use of the bath room in a mixed manner, and eventually used the bath room for the Plaintiff.

4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around 2012, had a dispute over the issue of gathering the Defendant’s parents at the Medical Care Center, and the relationship was brought to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant decided to divorce against the Plaintiff around 2012.

5) After the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant clearly expresses his intention not to divorce until now, and the instant principal also appears to live together with the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, investigation report of family affairs investigators, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for divorce

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has been broken down to the extent that it can no longer recover.

① The Defendant has no intention to resolve conflicts, such as criticism and disregarding the Plaintiff, if the result of the Plaintiff’s choice different from the Defendant’s opinion is not satisfactory, and refusal of medical treatment during the marital counseling process recommended by the Plaintiff in order to resolve the married couple’s conflicts.

② Since a few years, the Defendant did not look back to the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff did not look at the Plaintiff’s house, and the Plaintiff provided meals to the principal of the case and the Defendant in the home, and only carried out laundry case principal and the Defendant.

③ Since 2012 when the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant deepened, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members were not present in the history of the divorce with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s family members were unfairly treated, such as dumping or neglecting the same food.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed above, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's marital relationship was broken down due to the reason attributable to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) In a case where the defendant, who has strict standards for his own name, violated his own standards or made an appraisal, is not expressed in a positive direction, and thus subject to criticism, criticism, or violence, and the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant becomes worse. However, even though the plaintiff as a family member, as well, should come to his own time and effort on the raising of his child and the family affairs, there is a aspect that causes conflict, i.e., both the defendant and his husband, without expressing it in a positive direction.

② In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant currently used a bank, while maintaining a matrimonial life for about 20 years and living in one house during which conflict over the last 3 and 4 years has deepened, and thus, there seems to be room to reasonably resolve the current conflict situation.

③ The Plaintiff, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, recommended the Defendant to provide counseling to the Defendant and received counseling together, as well as the Plaintiff and the Defendant, from the standpoint of the other party during the course of counseling following the instant conciliation measure, to return to the Plaintiff, to the other party, to the other party, and to make statements about the fact that he or she was dissatisfy, etc., may cause difficulties and the recovery of trust and conflicts.

④ Although the Defendant applied for divorce at one time, the Defendant clearly expressed his intention not to divorce until now after the institution of the instant lawsuit, and made efforts to restore the marital relationship and to maintain the family. The instant principal also does not want the divorce.

3. Determination on consolation money, division of property, designation of a person with parental authority or a child support, and claim for child support

Since the plaintiff's claim for divorce is without merit, there is no reason to view the consolation money, division of property, designation of a person with parental authority or a person with parental authority, and claim for child support.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

Judge Cho Young-young (Presiding Judge)