2014dden20348 (Counterclaim) Divorce and division of property

Busan East-gu

Gyeongbuk-gu Office in the place of registration

Attorney Lee Do-young

Busan East-gu

Busan District of Service;

Gyeongbuk-gu Office in the place of registration

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim of this case is dismissed in entirety.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person in total in the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The defendant shall pay consolation money to the plaintiff KRW 50 million. The defendant shall pay consolation money to the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff.

by division of property, part of retirement allowances, land, vehicles, national pension, insurance, installment savings, etc. under the name of the defendant

shall be divided.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff is divorced by the defendant. The plaintiff is divorced by each division of property, Busan* Gu** the Dong*

************** * Dongra***************** procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to heading;

42, 455, 741 Won and the interest thereon from the final date of the judgment of this case to the date of full payment.

5% interest shall be paid at the rate of 5%.

A judicial divorce, based on the time of the closing of argument, is to resolve the marital relationship in a case where there is a reason falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 840 of the Civil Act, and the marital relationship is forced to be resolved by a unilateral spouse’s declaration of intent to resolve the marital relationship for that reason. As such, a spouse’s intention to divorce is not only at the time of filing a lawsuit but also at the time of closing of argument. If there is no intention to divorce with the spouse who has filed the lawsuit, it shall be deemed that there is no benefit to resolve the marital relationship or to determine the existence of a claim for divorce through a judgment.

In the instant case, on August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant principal lawsuit claiming divorce or consolation money with the Defendant as the other party, but the Defendant filed a counterclaim on September 18, 2014, and on May 10, 2016, the pleadings on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim were pending, respectively, and the Plaintiff filed a written withdrawal of the lawsuit against the entire principal lawsuit. However, on May 11, 2016, the Defendant presented a written withdrawal statement with respect to the withdrawal of the instant principal lawsuit. Since the Plaintiff refused divorce with the Defendant after the submission of the written withdrawal statement, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff consistently stated that he/she would continue his/her marital relationship with the Defendant until the closing of argument in the instant case. In light of the above acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for property division and the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce are unlawful on the premise that there is no benefit to the Plaintiff’s property division itself, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful.

2. Determination on the counterclaim claim

피고는 , 원고와 피고의 혼인생활은 원고가 약 5년 전부터 피고에게 각방을 쓰자고 요구하면서 부부관계를 거절하고 , 새벽 2 - 3시까지 다른 남자와 부정행위를 하다가 귀 가하며 , 요양병원에 계시는 피고의 모친을 제대로 찾아뵙지 아니하고 , 피고가 바람을 피웠다는 이유로 이 사건 본소 이혼소송 및 간통고소까지 제기한 원고의 귀책으로 인 하여 파탄되었다고 주장하면서 반소로 이혼 및 재산분할을 청구하므로 이에 관하여 본

In light of the following facts: (a) there is no evidence to prove the Defendant’s fault; (b) even if the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was filed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged intentionally, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant and filed a claim for divorce of the instant principal lawsuit; and (c) even if the marriage occurred between August and September 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for divorce of the instant counterclaim, and (d) there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant used for each of five years prior to the filing of the counterclaim and was acceptable for each of the unlawful acts; (b) the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 3, and Nos. 6 through 9 were presented, and the cause of the failure did not appear to exist to the extent that the Plaintiff did not comply with the claim for divorce, on June 2014, and on August 2014, the evidence presented by the Defendant merely based on the premise that there was no other objective reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce should continue to exist without any specific reason.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful, it is dismissed, and all of the defendant's claim of counterclaim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.