Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 9:01:25 GMT
The defendant did not open the door and sent her husband home. It is understood that he did not receive it. According to this situation, it must be accepted that the plaintiff is more at fault in shaking the foundation of the marriage union. The party whose dominant fault caused the divorce should also be held responsible for paying compensation to the other party whose fault is minimal, if the conditions exist. This being the case, it was not deemed correct for the parties to be considered "equally at fault" and accordingly to reject the defendant's compensation claims. Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd HD., 04.07.2012, 2012/35 E. It is understood that the marital union continued after the events stated by the plaintiff's witnesses and that the parties underwent "in vitro fertilization" treatment together in the second month of 2007.
Since they desire to have a baby and resort to assisted France Telegram Number Data reproductive treatment methods for this purpose, this shows that previous events are forgiven, or at least tolerated . Events that are forgiven and tolerated are not grounds for divorce. It has not been proven that the foundations of the marriage union have been shaken to such an extent that they cannot be expected to continue their common life.The defendant did not open the door and sent her husband home. It is understood that he did not receive it. According to this situation, it must be accepted that the plaintiff is more at fault in shaking the foundation of the marriage union. The party whose dominant fault caused the divorce should also be held responsible for paying compensation to the other party whose fault is minimal, if the conditions exist. This being the case, it was not deemed correct for the parties to be considered "equally at fault" and accordingly to reject the defendant's compensation claims.
Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd HD., 04.07.2012, 2012/35 E. It is understood that the marital union continued after the events stated by the plaintiff's witnesses and that the parties underwent "in vitro fertilization" treatment together in the second month of 2007. Since they desire to have a baby and resort to assisted reproductive treatment methods for this purpose, this shows that previous events are forgiven, or at least tolerated . Events that are forgiven and tolerated are not grounds for divorce. It has not been proven that the foundations of the marriage union have been shaken to such an extent that they cannot be expected to continue their common life.
Since they desire to have a baby and resort to assisted France Telegram Number Data reproductive treatment methods for this purpose, this shows that previous events are forgiven, or at least tolerated . Events that are forgiven and tolerated are not grounds for divorce. It has not been proven that the foundations of the marriage union have been shaken to such an extent that they cannot be expected to continue their common life.The defendant did not open the door and sent her husband home. It is understood that he did not receive it. According to this situation, it must be accepted that the plaintiff is more at fault in shaking the foundation of the marriage union. The party whose dominant fault caused the divorce should also be held responsible for paying compensation to the other party whose fault is minimal, if the conditions exist. This being the case, it was not deemed correct for the parties to be considered "equally at fault" and accordingly to reject the defendant's compensation claims.
Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd HD., 04.07.2012, 2012/35 E. It is understood that the marital union continued after the events stated by the plaintiff's witnesses and that the parties underwent "in vitro fertilization" treatment together in the second month of 2007. Since they desire to have a baby and resort to assisted reproductive treatment methods for this purpose, this shows that previous events are forgiven, or at least tolerated . Events that are forgiven and tolerated are not grounds for divorce. It has not been proven that the foundations of the marriage union have been shaken to such an extent that they cannot be expected to continue their common life.