The case where a request for divorce has no interest in a lawsuit

If a judgment in favor of the respondent has become final and conclusive on October 7, 1976 in a lawsuit against the respondent for a separate divorce trial against the respondent, and accordingly, the procedure of divorce on the family register has been followed by a report of the respondent on January 11, 1977, the lawsuit for a divorce trial is a form of litigation aimed at termination of the marital relationship, etc. under the law, and the appellant and the respondent have already been divorced on January 11, 197, and thus, there is no benefit of the claimant's lawsuit for a divorce trial in this case.

Article 205 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da252 delivered on December 24, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 10602Da10602 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 21No321 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 205(8)910 delivered on the summary of the Civil Procedure Act, No. 479No7638 delivered on the court bulletin)

Claimant

appellee 1 et al.

Daegu District Court of the first instance (75D746)

1. The part of the request for divorce among the original adjudication shall be revoked;

Any action for a divorce trial against an appellee of an appellant shall be dismissed.

2. The claimant's remaining appeal is dismissed;

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

An appellant and one appellee shall be divorced.

The respondent shall jointly and severally pay to the claimant an amount of KRW 2,00,000 and an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the written appeal on this case to the day of full payment.

Trial costs shall be borne by the respondent in both the first and second trials.

1. The claimant: (a) 110,000 won from the defendant's 1st day of making up the defendant's marriage with the claimant's marriage ceremony; (b) 50,000 gold booms, three half half balls, and half 20,000 from the defendant's father; (c) in order to identify his or her whereabouts, he or she was sexually abused by the defendant 2; (d) after having filed a complaint with the Kimcheon Police Station, the defendant's father, his or her father; and (e) again, he or she had been living together with the defendant 1; (e) the defendant again after having taken up all of them, the defendant did not have any meals but laundry; (e) 10,000 won of the defendant'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 and son's her son's son her son her her her.

2. Judgment on the first petition for divorce

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 (Judgment) and 8 (No. 7) in which each authenticity is presumed to have been established as a public official according to the method and purport of the document, the defendant's lawsuit for divorce trial (Tgu District Court 76d45 case) against the claimant, which is the petitioner of the above case, shall be filed on October 7, 1976, and the defendant's winning trial is sentenced on Oct. 7, 1976, which is the petitioner of the above case, and the above judgment has become final and conclusive and conclusive on Jan. 11, 1977, which is the fact that the divorce procedure between the petitioner and the respondent under the family register and the respondent under the custody of the respondent under the family register, and there is no counter-proof.

The plaintiff's action for divorce of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff and the defendant have already been divorced on January 11, 197, and their marital relationship has already been terminated, since the plaintiff's action for divorce of this case has no interest in the lawsuit, since the plaintiff's action for divorce of this case is a lawsuit for divorce of this case under the presumption that the marital relationship still exists in law.

3. Determination on the claim of consolation money

In light of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (O. 1), 2-1, 3 (O. 4), 5 (O. 5), and 6-1, 2 (O. 6-1, and 4 (O. 4) of each statement (except for the part which is not trusted out of evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6-1 and 6-2), and the defendant's testimony outside the court below's 1, 2 (except for the part which is not trusted out of the testimony No. 2) and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant and the defendant did not look at the defendant's 1, 1971 and after the defendant's report on Jan. 15, 1974, the defendant and the defendant did not have any other part of the defendant's 1, 1971, and they did not have any other part of the defendant's 1, 196-1, 197.

According to the above facts, the cause of the failure of marriage between the claimant and the respondent is excessive without separation, and the main wall is severe, and without permission of the respondent 1, and the respondent is extremely unfair treatment, such as threatening the kitchen and a deadly weapon, so even though there is a serious reason to make it difficult for the claimant to continue the marriage, the applicant who created such a situation shall be liable for the failure of marriage.

Therefore, the part of the claimant's claim for consolation money on the premise that the responsibility of the marital life between the claimant and the respondent caused the failure of the marriage between the claimant and the respondent is against the respondent 1 and his/her father-child.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claimant's claim for divorce is unlawful and dismissed, and the claimant's claim for consolation money shall be dismissed without merit. The plaintiff's claim for divorce among the original judgment which has a different conclusion shall be dismissed, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed, and the remaining part of the claim for consolation money shall be dismissed, and the remaining part of the appeal shall be dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, and Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)