The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 550,903,991 as division of property and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

2. All of the remaining appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

3. The cost of the principal lawsuit shall be borne by each party, and the part resulting from the counterclaim shall be borne by the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff.

A. Main suit: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter "the defendant") are divorced. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 10 million won consolation money and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 20% per annum to the plaintiff from the day following the delivery of the written application for re-issuance of the claim and re-issuance of the cause of the claim to the plaintiff (the plaintiff claimed 50 million consolation money from the first instance court to the day of complete payment, and then appealed 30 million won from the judgment of the first instance court, and filed a claim for revocation of KRW 20 million which is the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, and at the same time claimed 70,000,000 consolation money, which is the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, and the defendant shall be deemed to have extended the plaintiff's claim to 10,000 won from the day following the court of first instance to the day of delivery of the plaintiff's principal's child support to the plaintiff.

B. Counterclaim: The defendant and the plaintiff shall be divorced. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 10,00,000 won consolation money and 5% per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case until the judgment is rendered, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall be designated as a person with parental authority and the guardian of the principal of this case. The plaintiff shall pay 300,000 won per month from the day after the copy of the counterclaim of this case is served to the majority of the principal of this case.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 70,000,000 won consolation money and 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff a property division of KRW 1,277,479,045 and deliver 20,000 out of the shares of the non-party 2 corporation.

B. Defendant

(1) Main suit: The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

(2) Counterclaim: Revocation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance. The same shall apply to the part in the claim(s).

2. Determination on the claim for division of property

(a) Basic facts;

The following facts may be recognized by taking into account the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 through 11 and 29 (including a branch number for those with a serial number) and the testimony of Non-Party 1 of Non-Party 1 of the first instance trial.

(1) During the marriage life, the Plaintiff was in charge of domestic affairs and childcare, and the Defendant was working for the ○ Metal Processing Company, which is operated by the Defendant, and established Nonparty 2 corporation around 199, around 199, and operated the non-party 2 corporation as the representative director.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, while working on ○ Metal, shall increase the property by means of saving the remaining money after appropriating it to living expenses, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 14, 1993 as to the Heung-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter 1 omitted) on the ground of sale.

(3) On June 15, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land of 793 square meters (number 1 omitted), forest land (land number 2 omitted) in Seosung-si, Seosung-si, Seosung-si, and 793 square meters (land number 2 omitted). On July 20, 2004, the Defendant and the Defendant were divided into 2849 square meters (land number 3 omitted), forest land (land number 4,5,6,7 omitted) in Seosung-si, Seosung-si, Seosung-si, and the Defendant’s birth, for the land of 995/2849, and for the land of 859/2849/2849, 859/28499, and 300,000,000 won among the above land of 300,000,000 won (land number 3030,000,000 won).

(4) After that, the defendant constructed a building A Dong and B Dong building on the ground (number 2,5 omitted) of Masung-si (number 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted) in the name of the Industrial Bank of Korea in the name of the non-party 2 corporation, and constructed a building on the ground (number 2, 5 omitted) of Masung-si (number 4 omitted) in the name of the non-party 2 corporation, and building on the ground (number 6 omitted) of Masung-si (number 6 omitted) in the Masung-si (number 6 omitted) in the Masung-si (number 2, 5 omitted) in the name of the non-party 2 corporation. The non-party 2 corporation completed the registration of ownership preservation on the ground of Masung-si and B Dong-si (number 2, 5 omitted), the non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership preservation on the ground number of Masung-si (number 6 omitted), respectively.

(5) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, while managing the non-party 2 corporation, shall increase the property by means of saving the remaining money after appropriating it to living expenses, etc., and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 4, 2007 as to the Jung-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and Jung-gu, 1052 (hereinafter referred to as the “2 omitted) for sale.

(b) Property and value to be divided;

(i)affirmative property;

(A) The plaintiff

(1) Heungcheon-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "2 omitted): 149,000,000 (Evidence No. 32-2)

(2) The refund for cancellation of the Green Life Insurance Policy for Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.: 45,466,240 won (the result of inquiry into the Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. at this court)

(3) Small: 194,466,240 won.

(B) Defendant

(1) Heung-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, 105 Jung-dong (hereinafter referred to as "1 omitted): 50,000,000 ( Results of Appraisal of the Constitution by Appraiser)

(2) The forest land of 794 square meters in the area of Seosung-si (number 2 omitted): 323,158,000 square meters (the result of the appraisal of the unconstitutionality by an appraiser)

③ In the Yeong-si, Seosung-si, Yeong-si (number 4 omitted): KRW 274,127,142 (the result of the appraiser’s appraisal of the unconstitutionality, the total amount of KRW 421,245,00, and the Defendant’s share on the registry 995/2849, Nonparty 2’s share 859/2849, Nonparty 1’s share 95/2849, and Nonparty 1’s share 995/2849, since the Defendant has de facto control over the property of Nonparty 2, it is recognized as division of property equivalent to the sum of the shares of the Defendant and Nonparty 2’s share, and the amount below KRW 1,245,00,

④ Division of property is equivalent to the land indicated in paragraph (3), since it constitutes a share of 210,561,428 square meters (number 5 omitted): 210,561,428 (the appraisal result of the appraisal by misunderstanding the appraiser, the total amount of 323,565,000 won, and the share of 323,565,000 is equal to that of the land indicated in paragraph (3). Therefore, it is recognized as a property

(5) Mansung-si, Seosung-si (number 6 omitted): KRW 263,532,857 (the total amount shall be determined as KRW 404,965,00 by applying KRW 407,00 per square meter per square meter as land under paragraph (4), which is the neighboring land, because the market price has not been appraised). Since the same share as land under paragraph (3) is a constituent of shares as land under paragraph (3), it is recognized as a property division equivalent to the sum of shares of the defendant and non-party 2 corporation).

6. Forest land 75m2: 17,863,215 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00

7) A Dong-dong building on the Seosung-si, Seosung-si (Land Number 2, 5 omitted): 129,370,500 won (the result of appraisal by the appraiser's fault, the result of appraisal by the appraiser's fault, but the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of Non-Party 2, and as seen thereafter, the Defendant actually controls the property of Non-Party 2, as seen thereafter, including

8. Building B on the ground of Seosung-si (number 2, 5 omitted): 128,205,00 won (the result of appraisal by the appraiser's fault, the result of appraisal by the appraiser's fault, but the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of non-party 2 corporation, but the defendant actually controls the property of non-party 2 corporation, as seen thereafter, such real estate is included in the property division).

(9) A building on the ground of tin-to-land (number 6 omitted): 214,230,000 won (the result of appraisal by misunderstanding expert witnesses)

(10) Shares of 1/7 square meters among 69,29,294 square meters of woodland 69,294 square meters of Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun (number 8 omitted): 7,622,340 won (the amount corresponding to the defendant's share of the total amount of KRW 53,356,380 of the appraisal result of misunderstanding

(11) Shares of 1/7 square meters among forest land of 72,415 square meters in Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun (number 9 omitted): 8,793,250 won (the amount corresponding to the defendant's share in total out of the result of appraisal of misunderstanding by an appraiser and the total amount of 61,552,750 won)

(12) Shares of 1/7 square meters out of 36,204 square meters of woodland 36,204 square meters of Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun (number 10 omitted): 4,396,200 won (the amount corresponding to the defendant's share out of the total amount of 30,773,400 won as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser

(13) Equity share of 1/2 from among the 1159-5 Subfra (hereinafter referred to as "3 omitted): 60,000,000 (the result of the appraisal of the misunderstanding constitution by an appraiser and the amount corresponding to the defendant's equity share of the total amount of KRW 120,000,000,000)

(14) Lease deposit in the office of Samcheon-gu, Samcheon-dong (number 11 omitted): 15,000,000 won (Certificate 5)

(15) Insurance premium paid for the non-payment of dividends for Alger's Life Insurance Co., Ltd.: 33,975,800 won (based on the insurance premium paid for the non-payment for the non-payment of dividends for Alger's Life Insurance Co., Ltd. in this Court since there is no data on the fact inquiry, and on the expected termination

Modern Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. is expected at the expected cancellation refund of insurance: 347,220 won (the result of inquiry into Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. of this Court)

The aggregate of the private annuity savings 21C insurance, the non-dividend New Beneficiary Insurance, the non-dividend New Beneficiary Insurance, the Non-Distribution Pension Policy, the Non-Distribution Pension Policy, the Non-Distribution Pension Policy, and the expected termination refund for the social insurance for the Non-Distribution Social Insurance: 71,442,406 won (as a result of the fact-finding conducted by this court on October 14, 2008, 29,748,279 won for the anticipated termination refund for the Private Annuity Savings 21C Insurance as of October 14, 2008, 5,75,40 won for the expected termination refund for the Non-Distribution New Beneficiary Insurance, 5,75,400 won for the expected termination refund for the Non-Distribution Pension Policy, 24,340,105 won for the expected termination refund for the Non-Distribution Pension Policy, and 11,04,672 won for the cancellation of the Non-Distribution Pension Policy).

Socs: 2,312,625,358 won

(2) Petty property

① The Defendant’s obligation to pay a bill to ethyl Co., Ltd.: KRW 300,00 (as seen earlier, the date of de facto marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around April 22, 2008, and KRW 300,000 for the obligor, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount, KRW 300,000,00,00 (as seen earlier, around November 7, 2007, the maximum debt amount of the bill can be viewed as the Defendant’s obligation to pay a bill to 200,000,000 (see, e.g., evidence 8). The Defendant’s obligation to pay a bill to 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

② Loans to Han Bank Co., Ltd. with the Defendant’s active property paragraph (1) as security: KRW 142,602,000 (the result of inquiry into Han Bank Co., Ltd. of this Court)

(3) Loans owed to the Bank of Korea by the Defendant’s active properties as collateral for real properties listed in paragraphs (2) through (9): 573,749,135 won (Evidence (Evidence No. 31)

(4) Small river: 1,016,351,135 won.

(c) Net property: 1,490,740,463 won;

(a) Plaintiff’s net property: 194,466,240 won;

(B) Defendant’s net property: KRW 1,296,274,223 (=2,312,625,358); KRW 1,016,351,135)

C. Determination of the parties’ assertion

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that, among the land of Seosung-si (number 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted) land of Masan-si (number 4, 6, 7 omitted), each of the 995/2849 shares and (number 4 omitted) ground buildings should be included in active property subject to division, since the Defendant was the property under title trust with the non-party 1, who is the birth.

On July 20, 2004, Non-party 1, who is the defendant's birth, completed the registration of ownership transfer for each share of 995/2849 out of the land of Seosung-si (number 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted) Seosung-si, Seosung-si, and completed the registration of ownership preservation for a building on the ground (number 4 omitted) on July 3, 2006.

① However, as seen above 2. A. (3) as seen above, it appears that the agreement was made with the defendant to bear the duty to pay KRW 100 million out of the above loans (number 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted) on the surface of Seosung-si (number 2, 5, 6, and 30 million won loaned by the Industrial Bank of Korea from the Industrial Bank of Korea. ② Accordingly, from January 2004 to November 2006, Nonparty 1 paid KRW 5.4 billion out of the above loans to the defendant during the period of KRW 100 million, and it appears that he did not bear the duty to pay KRW 100 million out of the above loans to the defendant around January 207 (as a result of inquiry into one bank of this court, the fact that Nonparty 1 received KRW 4,700,000 from the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, and the fact that Nonparty 1 received KRW 14,700,000,00 from the defendant 4.

(B) The Plaintiff asserts that, among the Defendant’s active property, the deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000 in the office-lease, Yongsan-gu, Samcheon-si (number 11 omitted) office was the Defendant’s resident. In the Defendant’s preparatory document dated April 28, 2009, the Defendant was the Defendant’s deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, but the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,00,00 is stated in the lease contract (Evidence No. 5) on the above office lease contract (Evidence No. 5). In light of the above, the Defendant’s above person appears to have been erroneous (the case of division of property is a non-litigation case, and the Family Court should investigate the facts ex officio and examine necessary evidence pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Family Litigation Rule, so the provisions on the confession in the family lawsuit or civil lawsuit do not apply). Unlike the above office’s lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,00. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) The defendant asserts that since the 859/2849 shares in the land of Seosung-si (number 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted) and the above (number 2, 5 omitted) ground A and B buildings owned by Non-Party 2 Co., Ltd., among the land of Seosung-si (number 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted), it shall not be included in active property subject to division.

On July 20, 2004, Non-party 2 corporation completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each share of 859/2849 out of the land of Seosung-si (number 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted) Seosung-si, Seosung-si, and completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to the building A Dong and Dong B on July 3, 2006.

① However, around 199, the defendant established the non-party 2 corporation by acquiring all of the factories and machinery located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul from 199 to 150 million won (hereinafter 4 omitted) (Evidence No. 18, Eul 24-1), ② the non-party 1 (the defendant's birth) at the time of incorporation 35%, the non-party 4 (the defendant's wife 1) 10%, the non-party 5 (the defendant's wife 19), the non-party 6 (the defendant's wife 19), the non-party 30% shares in the non-party 4's property (the defendant's relative 19), and the non-party 2's representative director's testimony at the court of first instance that the non-party 1's agent's "any shareholder at the time of the incorporation of the company" belongs to the non-party 1, 4,500 won, and the non-party 1's testimony at the court of first instance was not held by the defendant 2.

(B) The Defendant asserts that the above real estate should be excluded from active property subject to division because it is not actually the Defendant’s property, and it should be excluded from active property subject to division, since it sold the land of Mag-ri (number 6,7 omitted) and the above building of Mag-ri (number 6 omitted) to Nonparty 7 and received the price in full and completed the registration of ownership transfer claim.

According to Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7, 23, and 28 (including a serial number) of Eul, "the non-party 7 shall pay 60 million won to the defendant on June 27, 2006, and building on the same Ri (number 6,7 omitted) shall be 430 million won from the defendant, and the non-party 7 shall purchase 430 million won from the defendant on June 27, 2006, and the non-party 7 shall purchase 43,00 million won from the defendant on August 10, 2006, an intermediate payment of KRW 8,00 million on August 10, 206, and the remainder of KRW 60 million on October 19, 206, the fact that the contract was prepared that "the non-party 7 shall take over 200 million loan obligations to the Industrial Bank of Korea on June 27, 208, the non-party 2008.

① Under the above sales contract, the date of the contract is 206.6.27; the number of the land for the sale purpose is 70 billion won or less; the land category of the land for the sale purpose is 50 billion won or less (6,7 omitted); the land category is 300 million won or less; the land category is 6,700,000 won or less (6,700,000 won or less) and the land category was changed from "forest" to 70,000,000 won or less (6,70,000,000 won or less); the defendant's witness's testimony was 70,000,000 won or less based on the premise that the plaintiff's agent prepared the above sales contract, and the non-party 7's testimony was 5,000,000 won or less (70,000 won or less); and the defendant's testimony was 5,000,000 won or less under the above sales contract.

(C) The Defendant asserts that the loans owed to Han Bank amounting to KRW 70 million and the loans owed to the Industrial Bank of Korea amounting to KRW 300 million should be included in the small assets subject to division.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 30-1 and 31, it seems that the Defendant has received each loan of KRW 70 million from Han Bank on December 28, 2009, and KRW 300 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea on June 10, 2010. However, even before the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit on or around December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are separate from the Defendant, and the Defendant sought a divorce by counterclaim on or around April 22, 2008, at least since around April 22, 2008, the marriage life of the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have actually disappeared. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant has held the increased loan as it is, insofar as the Defendant does not specifically prove the use, etc. of the above loan increased after the dissolution of marriage, the Defendant’s assertion that both the above loan and the loan have to be excluded from the property subject to division is without merit.

(D) The defendant asserts that the debt of the bill amount increased after April 22, 2008 should be included in the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 30-2 to 7's argument that the debt of the bill amount of this case 817,097,507 won (the debt of the bill amount of 578,119,440 won among them) occurred until the date of the closing of argument in this case. However, as seen above, the plaintiff and the defendant held the above debt of the bill amount of the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 307.

(E) The defendant asserts that since he used the lease deposit of KRW 15,00,000 for the office of Samcheon-dong (number 11 omitted) in Jungcheon-gu and used it as a refund of insurance money for Alurian-dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd., it shall not be included in active property. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(f) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's title trust agreement with the plaintiff about the above apartment should be included in the active property subject to division because the Heung-dong 1052 Jung-gu 1052 (hereinafter referred to as "6 omitted) was the property trusted to the non-party 9. On December 17, 2007, the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the above apartment to the non-party 9 is recognized. However, it is insufficient to find that the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that there was a title trust agreement with the plaintiff and the non-party 9, and there is no other evidence to

(G) The defendant asserts that the share of 1/7 of the land in the Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun (number 8,9,10 omitted) should be succeeded to by the defendant and should be excluded from the active property subject to division because it is the defendant's unique property.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 12 through 14, it is recognized that the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership for 1/7 shares out of the land of Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do (number 8, 9, 10 omitted) which was owned by the defendant through the "Seocheon-do, Seocheon-do, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do, (number 8, 9, 10 omitted) around 192. However, even if one spouse's special property is the husband's own property, if the other party actively cooperates in the maintenance of the unique property and actively cooperates in the reduction thereof, it may be divided. As seen above, since the plaintiff from 1986 to 3 children while maintaining a marital life with the defendant and contributed to the maintenance of the above real property, the above real property is entirely subject to division of property. Therefore, the defendant'

(d) The ratio and method of division;

(1) Division ratio: Plaintiff 50%, Defendant 50%

[Grounds for Determination: The above facts of recognition, the marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant for 24 years, and the plaintiff is in charge of domestic affairs and childcare, and the defendant also contributed to the formation of joint property of the couple while operating the non-party 2 corporation

(2) Method of division: The property of the non-party 2 corporation is reverted to the defendant, and the remaining property and debts are reverted to the defendant as currently owned and liable, and the amount equivalent to the difference between the amount to be reverted to the plaintiff according to the division ratio of property among the net property of the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff is paid in cash to the plaintiff

(3) Property division amount that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff: 50,903,991 won

(Calculation Forms: 1,490,740,463 won ¡¿ 0.5 - 194,46,240 won = 550,903,991 won)

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 50,903,91 as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce among the plaintiff's principal claim shall be accepted in the grounds for divorce, the claim for consolation money shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. As to the claim for division of property, the person with parental authority and custody, the claim for designation of child support and visitation right shall be determined as above. Since the part concerning the claim for division of property in the judgment of the court of first instance is partly unfair, it shall be modified as above. The plaintiff's remaining appeal and the claim for consolation money expanded in the trial, and the defendant's appeal shall

Judges anti-Japanese (Presiding Judge) Kim-jin Kim Dong-dong