2018dern203810 (Counterclaim), divorce, etc.

2. D;

2. The consolation money shall be paid to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim) pays 50 million won and 5% interest per annum from July 9, 2016 to June 26, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and

B. Defendant C and D jointly with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pay 25 million won out of the amount set forth in the foregoing paragraph (a) and 5% per annum from July 14, 2016 to June 26, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the amount calculated by the division of property, the amount of KRW 1773 million, and the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remainder of consolation money and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim divorce and consolation money claim are all dismissed.

5. The person with parental authority and the care of the principal of the case shall designate the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

6. From July 1, 2018 to February 21, 2032, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the amount of KRW 400,000 per month from July 1, 2018 to the child support of the principal of the instant case, to February 21, 2032, before the principal of the instant case reaches the age of majority, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) may visit the principal of the instant case before the principal of the instant case reaches the age of majority, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall actively cooperate with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) so that the said visitation right may be exercised smoothly.

(a) schedule;

1) Secondly, from 12:00 Saturdays to 18:00 on the following day: 2:

2) The period from 18:00 to 18:00 on the day of each string, one day from 18:00 to 18:00 on the following day; 3) the date of anniversary, such as the birth day of the principal of the case; and the visitation negotiation schedule during the vacation period may be determined by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) under mutual agreement later.

(b) Place and method;

The method for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to take part in the same place after freely making an interview at a place designated by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with the instant principal’s residence. The visitation right with regard to matters to be considered takes precedence over the welfare of the principal of the instant case, but when it is necessary to change the visitation right schedule due to the health attitude, schedule, and mutual inevitable circumstances of the principal of the instant case, he/she shall notify the other party at least three days prior to such change, and the visitation right schedule may be adjusted under consultation.

8. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party;

9. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The disposition No. 1 and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and the Defendants jointly pay 100 million won as consolation money to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of the full payment. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 300,401,481 won as division of property, and 5% per annum from the day following the day of this decision to the day of full payment. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff a person in parental authority and care for the principal of this case. Defendant B shall be appointed as the person in parental authority and care for the principal of this case. The Plaintiff may conduct an interview for 12 days from the 12th day to the 18th day following Saturdays.

[Counterclaim] The plaintiff and the defendant B are divorced by counterclaim. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant B the amount of consolation money of KRW 30 million with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant B the amount calculated by the division of property at the rate of KRW 50 million per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall designate the defendant B as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of this case. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant B the amount of KRW 11.5 million with the child support of the principal of this case from the day when the judgment of this case was rendered to February 22, 203 as the child support of the principal of this case.

1. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff and Defendant B were married on July 9, 2012, and they were children. Defendant C and D are parents of Defendant B.

2) On January 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff first exchanged Defendant B with the introduction of a relative. At first, the Plaintiff assisted Defendant B to provide a leasing business that he / she left, was provided with a good and reliable person, and was introduced with his / her sexual record and person with a sexual record and the introduction. The Plaintiff was simply a simple answer to the Plaintiff’s physical records during the teaching period, and the Plaintiff was able to enter into a marriage with a large number of horses on the Plaintiff’s demand.

3) On the first day of the new marriage, the Plaintiff responded to the following: (a) Defendant B sent a food figure of the drug; and (b) even after being asked at the place of the container; (c) Defendant B’s body is not good; and (d) the drug was reduced.

4) Defendant B wanted to do so and want to leave outside during the marriage period, and tried to do so at the home, and the humbling-type humbling-type humbling-type humping-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-huming-hum-hum

5) In around 2014, Defendant B did not actively participate in or give treatment to the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff had undergone a surgery for the A upper-board cancer, and the Plaintiff lost son’s disability due to Defendant B’s attitude.

6) Defendant B had a lot of cases where he did not go to his own room without attending family affairs or childcare. Since 2015, there were many cases where the Plaintiff did not go to due to an increase in the frequency of visits, and the Plaintiff was locked and did his behavior as if the Plaintiff did not go to the Plaintiff. Defendant B had the Plaintiff 's head 's head ' when the Plaintiff was posted to the Plaintiff,' or the principal of the case was 'if the principal was sent to the cultural center, 'if the principal of the case was sent to ice, the head of her head should be taken to the ice,' and the principal of the case was ' must be taken to go to the ice,' and the head of the her head should be taken to the ice, etc. was frequently disputed by the Defendant B’s words.

7) Defendant B attempted to look at the Plaintiff’s chest, who was living in the bed at around March 7, 2016, but the Plaintiff refused it, and the Plaintiff was forced to refuse it. The Plaintiff asserted with Defendant B, who did not act because there is a possibility of pregnancy, and Defendant C and D heard their sound and told Defendant C et al., and at the time, Defendant C would report Defendant B, who was not genuine, to “I will make a full-time call.” The Plaintiff was more unstable as the Defendants hidden.

8) On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was in a state of unsound body, but the Plaintiff was demoted to a scheduled director. Defendant B was a director and did not help the Plaintiff.

9) On March 15, 2016, Defendant B was late in Mar. 15, 2016 when he had a dispute with the Plaintiff, which was late in Mar. 15, 2016. However, Defendant B had been able to talk with the Plaintiff, and had been able to talk with the Plaintiff in Mar. 15, 201.

10) The Plaintiff, as the Defendants concealed and are pregnant, was unable to properly settle the back of the director, and did not have good body. On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained the understanding of the Defendants, and went to friendship. The Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant B got unsatisfy, and that the medicine was a coloned disease. The Plaintiff got a large shock and went to a miscarriage, and was subject to satisfying surgery from the mountain father and the miscarriage on March 28, 2016. Defendant B did not seek the Plaintiff by sending letters to the Plaintiff even after hearing the news.

11) On April 1, 2016, Defendant B and D, who talked with the Plaintiff’s words, etc. on the Plaintiff’s friendship, concluded that Defendant B’s drinking drugs were not the Plaintiff’s fluoral disease but the fluoral disease. The Plaintiff demanded that the hospital be accurately informed of the cause and process of the outbreak and treatment of Defendant B. In addition, the Defendants avoided it, and met with the doctor in charge of the shipping substitute hospital on April 28, 2016. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to provide medical examination and treatment at the same place, but the Plaintiff refused to believe that Defendant B was a fluoral and four.

12) Details and present status of Defendant B’s treatment

According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the Busan Metropolitan City Medical Center on April 10, 2009, Defendant C and D wanted the above hospital and consulted with the mentality of Defendant B. The medical records prepared by the doctor in charge at 00 stated that the personal relationship was not good, that is, the personal relationship was not good, that is, the computer, locked, and the head of the household is going to walk at night, that is, the family photograph, etc. are put to the parents, and the family photograph, etc. are all taken off, and the visit was thoroughly locked at the age of 30, and that "I do not go to go to the age of 30," and that "I am to take off the vehicle," and that "I am to be taken off, I am to be treated as necessary" (the defendant B).

According to the results of the fact-finding by the shipping substitute hospital, Defendant B showed symptoms such as refund, damage net, mixed standard, uneasiness, interest polarization, and social degradation, etc. from July 27, 2009 to April 20, 2012, and the first outbreak was presumed to have been presumed to have been around 2006 to 207.

From May 2, 2012, Defendant B had been regularly treated and supported by the Human University Shipping Bagy Hospital. While the doctor in charge has symptoms of mental illness such as cryposis and the net, it is a state of disease that has no problem in maintaining daily life in a stable state where symptoms do not seem to exist due to the adjustment of symptoms due to the current treatment. However, considering the honor and progress of the ordinary colon, I expressed that the possibility of completely treating the disease without maintaining the pharmacologic will be low.

13) Although Defendant B did not want to get a divorce with the initial Plaintiff, Defendant B filed a counterclaim on March 26, 2018.

14) The Plaintiff was living separately with Defendant B since March 24, 2016, and the principal of the case is raising Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] The statements, Gap 1 through 3, 5 through 11 (for each number, including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 3, 6, and 14, video, family investigation report by family affairs investigator, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim divorce claim

1) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts and various circumstances, including the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s consent to divorce by filing a counterclaim with the principal lawsuit, the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concealed and married, and the Plaintiff was committed with severe humiliation and verbal abuse against the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff shows abnormal behavior or going through a cryption during the marriage period, and the Plaintiff was committed during the marriage period. The Defendant B’s wrong conduct, such as the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not make an effort to actively dypate and communicate with the Plaintiff, and that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was no longer difficult to recover any longer, and this constitutes a judicial divorce ground as prescribed in Articles 840 and 846 of the Civil Act.

2) On the other hand, Defendant B asserted that, due to pregnancy due to the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s marital relationship, the marital life has been broken down as the cause of the Plaintiff’s liability, such as family negligence and unilateral runaway and abortion.

There is no evidence to prove the fact that pregnancy was made due to the sex relationship before the marriage.

The Plaintiff submitted these arguments to the medical record (A8) at the time, and made a false assertion by Defendant B, thereby seriously impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation. Furthermore, the materials submitted by Defendant B alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had the same cause as the Plaintiff alleged. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, even if some of the above circumstances were to exist, it is difficult to deem that the failure of the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B was a conclusive cause for the failure of the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the above argument by

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce on the principal lawsuit is well-grounded, and Defendant B’s claim for counterclaim divorce is without merit.

C. Determination on the claim of consolation money and counterclaim

1) The essence of the marriage claiming consolation money is a personal combination based on the difficulty and trust between men and women in terms of the law and a contract of status with an important meaning in social life, in which both men and women understand and protect the other party, and intend to lead a life of one’s own life. The mental disease of one of the parties to a marriage can be a serious obstacle to the other’s emotional distress and the maintenance of it. Thus, it is obvious that it is an important matter to be considered in determining marriage.

Nevertheless, Defendant B, as a party to a marriage, was the parent of Defendant B, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B, who had a significant impact on the Plaintiff’s decision on marriage by actively engaging in and promoting the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and was obligated to notify the Plaintiff of the detailed contents of the Defendant B’s mental disease prior to the marriage. Furthermore, Defendant C and D, even though they were aware of the abnormal behavior of the Defendant B during the marriage period, are likely to be prompt for whom they would have done so, she was harshly ill or not, and forced Defendant B to take into consideration the situation where the Plaintiff would not be able to do so. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was able to understand the abnormal behavior of Defendant B and the verbal abuse against the Plaintiff, which was difficult for the Plaintiff to understand during the marriage period. After having been aware of the Defendant B’s mental disease, the Plaintiff was shocked.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s marital relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant B caused the failure of the marriage, and the Plaintiff’s considerable mental suffering is obvious in light of the empirical rule, the Defendants are jointly liable to pay consolation money due to the failure of the marriage relationship to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the developments leading up to the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C and D; (b) the extent or role leading up to the marriage of the Plaintiff and the Defendant B; (c) the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B; (d) the Plaintiff’s age and Defendant B; (e) the Defendants did not notify; (e) the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s acknowledgement of such fact; and (e) the Defendants’ attitude after having become aware of such circumstances, the amount of consolation money shall be set at KRW 50 million against the Defendant B; and (e

2) Claim for solatium consolation money

Defendant B is mainly responsible for the failure of the marital relationship to the Plaintiff, and claims compensation for the counterclaim against the Plaintiff. However, as seen earlier, the principal liability for the failure of the marital relationship of this case to the Defendant B is against the Defendant. Therefore, Defendant B’s counterclaim damages claim against the Plaintiff is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, according to the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff and Defendant B are divorced, and they are obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff; Defendant B is jointly with Defendant B, and KRW 25 million out of the said money; and as the Plaintiff seeks, Defendant B, the next day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, from July 9, 2016; Defendant C and D, from July 14, 2016 to June 26, 2018, respectively, from July 2016 to June 26, 2018; and damages for delay calculated at a rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to each claim for division of property

A. As a matter of principle, the property subject to division of property and its amount in the division of property following a judicial divorce at the time of the division of property shall be determined on the basis of the date of the closing of argument in a divorce lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2000Du13, May 2, 2000). However, in special circumstances where there exist special circumstances, such as that the change in the property relationship arising between the date of closing of argument following the failure of marriage is unrelated to the property relationship formed jointly in the marriage, and is irrelevant to the property relationship formed in the marriage, the changed property shall be excluded from the property subject to division of property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu1455, Nov. 28, 2013). In this case, where the subject and value of division of property and Defendant B fail to make a statement by mutual consent with the Plaintiff and Defendant B, it shall be calculated on the basis of the date of closing of argument, and the positive and negative property held by the Plaintiff and Defendant B as of the agreement.

(b) Property and value to be divided;

1) Property to be divided: as shown in the list of the properties to be divided in the annexed sheet; and

2) Determination as to the party's assertion as to the property subject to division: It is as stated in the column of "see, e.g., the party's assertion."

(c) The ratio and method of division of property;

1) Division ratio: Plaintiff 30%, Defendant 70%

[Ground of determination] The process and period of marital life, the details and status of the acquisition of active property subject to division, the degree of contribution to the formation and maintenance of the Plaintiff and the Defendant leaptation, and all other circumstances, including the age, occupation, and support for division of property

2) The method of division of property: taking into account the name and form of the property subject to division, the details of acquisition, convenience of division, status of use, intent of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, etc., it is determined that the property in the name of each party belongs to each party, and that Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff a shortage of money ultimately attributable to the Plaintiff according to the said division ratio.

3) Property division amount to be paid by Defendant B to the Plaintiff

① The Plaintiff’s share according to the division of property among the net property of the Plaintiff and Defendant B

191,266,197 won (the aggregate of net property of the plaintiff and defendant B 637,53,992 won x 30% and less than won, hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) From the amount referred to in paragraph (1) above, 172,890,682 won (191,26,197 won - 18,375,515 won) which deducts the Plaintiff’s net property

③ Division of property to be paid by Defendant B to the Plaintiff

② The amount of the above paragraph is 173 million won in a little amount.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, as a result of division of property, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 173 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the full payment is made.

3. Determination on the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, child support, and visitation right

A. Taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the situation of fostering the principal of this case and the care environment, the age, gender, occupation and economic ability of the Plaintiff and Defendant B after the separation of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, it is reasonable to designate the Defendant B as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of this case.

(b) Calculation of child support;

As long as Defendant B was designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to share the child support of the principal of this case as the mother of the principal of this case. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s age, property, occupation and income scale, the age and parenting of the principal of this case, etc., the child support of the principal of this case

Therefore, from July 1, 2018, which was close to the date of this judgment as the child support of the principal of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 400,000 won per month to the end of each month from July 1, 2018 to the day before the principal of this case reaches the age of majority (the Plaintiff is seeking to pay 11,500,000 won for the past child support to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not state specific grounds for calculation, and the Plaintiff’s age and occupation (the circumstances where the Plaintiff was employed as an assistant nurse since he was separated from Defendant B) and the Plaintiff’s financial status, economic ability, equity in burden burden, etc. are not separately determined in the past. The visitation right Plaintiff has the right to visitation with the principal of this case, unless it is contrary to the welfare of the principal of this case, and the time and method of the visitation right as stated in the text shall be determined, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money within the scope of divorce and the above recognition shall be accepted for the reasons, and all of the plaintiff's remaining claim for consolation money, the counterclaim divorce and consolation money claim against defendant B shall be dismissed for lack of reasons. It is decided as per Disposition with regard to the division of property, the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, the child support, and the visitation right