2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 50 million won a solatium with 20% interest per annum from May 30, 2007 to the day of full payment.

3. All counterclaims of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the claim for consolation money are dismissed.

4. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the amount of KRW 700,000,000 as division of property and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5. Designation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) as a person with parental authority and guardian of the principal of the case.

6. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 1,200,00 per month from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to May 31, 2013 as the child support of the principal of this case, KRW 800,00 per month from the day following that to May 30, 2015, and KRW 400,000 per month from that to August 20, 2021, respectively.

7. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) may, whenever requested, interview the principal of the case, and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall not interfere with this.

8. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

9. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

① The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) shall pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) the amount of solatium KRW 50,000,000 and 20% interest per annum from May 9, 2007 to the date of full payment. ③ The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff property division of KRW 858,45,98 and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment. ④ The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 700,000 per month of the principal’s child support of the principal of the case until the principal of the case reaches his majority.

2. Counterclaim;

① The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be divorced by counterclaim. ② The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a solatium amounting to KRW 50,00,000 with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of adjudication, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. ③ The judgment that the Defendant shall be designated as a person with parental authority and guardian over the principal of this case.

(a) Circumstances of the dissolution of marriage;

(1) On February 24, 1992, the Plaintiff and the Defendant gave birth to the principal of the case, who is a married couple under the law that completed the marriage report.

The plaintiff and the defendant were living without a separate problem, and the plaintiff confirmed the defendant's mobile phone message around August 2006 and became aware that the defendant was in a bad relationship with the non-party 8.

Fidelity Defendant sent out to the Plaintiff the fact that he had not been aware of, and thereafter, requested the Plaintiff to divorce at the time of commencing his stay with Nonparty 8.

x. On February 10, 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant and the non-party 8 lived together with the police, and the defendant did not pay any living expenses to the plaintiff from that time.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, 13, 15, 19, and 19, each of the images of evidence No. 14, and the whole purport of the pleadings

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts of recognition, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant shall continue for more than one year, and the objection shall be deemed to have ceased to exist so far as it can no longer be recovered.

Furthermore, as to where the cause of the failure occurred, the fire between the plaintiff and the defendant was caused by the defendant's misconduct and the abandonment caused by the escape.

⑵ 이에 대하여 피고는, 원고가 체중을 감량한다는 명목하에 가사를 소홀히 하고 이웃집 남자와 부정행위를 하였으며, 혼인기간 중 피고를 폭행하고 시댁식구들을 냉대하여 원, 피고의 혼인이 파탄된 것이라고 주장하면서 반소로 이혼을 청구하고 있으나, 을 제4호증 내지 제5호증, 을 제17호증 내지 제22호증의 각 기재만으로는 피고의 주장사실을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 반소 이혼 청구 및 이를 전제로 하는 반소 위자료 청구는 모두 이유 없다.

Article 840(1), (2), and (6) of the Civil Code provides that the above act of the defendant constitutes grounds for divorce as provided by Article 840(1), (2), and (6) of the Civil Code, so the plaintiff's claim for divorce on the ground

In light of the empirical rule, it is clear that the plaintiff suffered a considerable mental suffering due to the failure of a matrimonial relationship due to the defendant's responsibility as above, so the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for the above mental suffering to the plaintiff. Thus, if the plaintiff and the defendant's age, occupation, property level, process of marital life, duration of continuance, failure situation, etc. are all taken into account, it is reasonable to determine consolation money as KRW 50,000,000.

(v) Accordingly, upon the Plaintiff’s principal claim, the Defendant is divorced from the Plaintiff on the basis of the Plaintiff’s principal claim, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 30, 2007 to July 31, 2008, the day following the delivery of the purport of the claim as of May 21, 2007 and the copy of the application for modification of the cause of claim as sought by the Plaintiff after the date of marriage dissolution.

2. Determination on the claim for division of property at the principal lawsuit

(a) Details of the formation of property;

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant had been a dry field farming shed, such as growing a drilling from the land left by the Defendant’s parents. While taking full charge of domestic affairs and rearing, the Plaintiff had been dedicated, from around 1998, until the day of providing meals to her children from around 1998.

B. On February 19, 1970, the Defendant acquired 3,50 square meters from 10,000, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

The defendant acquired 1216m2 in co-ownership with the non-resident 1 on January 1, 1969 the warehouse site for the 151 warehouse site for the 1216m2. Around 2004, part of the above land was divided and repaid to 100,000,000 won, and 2 warehouse was loaned from the U.S., and the market price of the above 151 warehouse site was 503,424,000 won. The market price of the above 151 warehouse site was 47,916,000 won for each of the two warehouse facilities on that ground was 47,916,000 won, and the loan amount of 98,000,000 won (the maximum debt amount of 70,000,000,000 won) was 10,000,0000 won (the maximum debt amount of 13,000,000 won).

Applicant The defendant did not provide a security, and the farming funds borrowed from the Org National Agricultural Cooperative on 1997 remain as KRW 9,00,000,000 each year, and the farming funds subsidized around 2001 remain at the present 36,00,000 as a substitute each year, and the farming funds subsidized around 201 remain at around April 200, and 11,69,522 are collected from the Muss loan with the living funds around 2004.

(v) The Plaintiff and the Defendant leased land in addition to the land above (number 1 omitted), and set up a farming house in the 26 vinyl houses.

⑹ 원고는 신한은행에 대출금 6,000,000원을, 엘지카드에서 2,500,000원을 현금서비를 받아 생활비 등으로 사용하였다.

[Identification Evidence] Evidence Nos. 3 through 7, evidence Nos. 11, 22, evidence Nos. 22, and 9 through 16, the market price appraisal of this Court, the result of each inquiry about Orna No. 3 through 7, 11, 22, and 9 through 16, and the whole purport of the pleadings

(b) Object and amount of division of property;

According to the above facts, the following property is included in the property division.

(1) Property subject to division of property under the Plaintiff’s name

㈎ 적극재산

(1) Land (hereafter referred to as "land number 1 omitted) 1,332,023,00 won;

(2) Land number 1 omitted) Total of 134,428,590 won of the ground buildings (houses, warehouses, vinyl houses, etc.)

(3) Land (hereafter referred to as "land number 2 omitted) 503,424,00 won;

(4) Two above ground warehouses (hereinafter referred to as "land number 2 omitted) Total 95,832,000 won (47,916,000 x 2)

(5) A vinyl 198,900,000 won (7,650,000 x 26)

Total 2,264,607,590

㈏ 소극재산

① The obligation to return loans with collateral security against Nonparty 12 28,000,000

2. The obligation to return loans with collateral security interest at Opopoul branch offices in Opopopoul branch offices 20,000,000

③ In total of KRW 178,530,000 (70,000,000 + + 8,530,000 + 100,000 + KRW 100,000,000) for each collateral security loan to the agricultural branch of Orpo Agricultural Bank

(4) Total amount of 56,699,522 won, such as loans, etc. for farming capital to the agricultural new branches of Orapo Agricultural Cooperatives

(9,000,000 + 36,000,000 + 11,69,522) Won

Total 283,229,522

㈐ 순 재산의 합계 1,981,378,068원 (2,264,607,590원 - 283,229,522원)

Dol Property under the name of the defendant

8,500,000 won (6,000,000 + 2,500,000) in aggregate for the return of loans

Consolidated Property 1,972,878,068 Won (1,981,378,068 - 8,500,000)

x) Judgment on the defendant's argument

㈎ 피고는, 위 (이하 지번 1 생략) 토지와 (이하 지번 2 생략) 토지는 이 사건 혼인 전에 상속받은 특유재산이므로 재산분할 대상이 되지 않는다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 원고가 피고와 혼인이후 위 토지에 살면서 위 토지들을 경작하면서 그 재산의 유지에 기여한 점은 위에서 본 바와 같으므로 위 토지들도 원고와 피고의 공동재산에 속한다고 할 것이어서, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

㈏ 피고는, 위 (이하 지번 1 생략) 토지는 소외 1과 합유이고, (이하 지번 2 생략) 토지는 소외 1과 공유이므로, 피고의 지분만 재산분할 대상에 포함되어야 한다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 갑 제3호증에 변론의 전체취지를 종합하면, 위 토지들은 비록 소외 1과 합유 또는 공유로 등기는 되어 있으나 실제로는 원고의 단독소유인 사실이 인정되므로, 위 주장도 이유 없다.

㈐ 피고는, 원고가 흥국생명, 삼성생명, 신한생명보험, AIG생명보험에 보험료를 지급하고 있어 위 각 보험계약의 환급보험금도 재산분할의 대상이 된다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 을 제15호증에 의하면, 원고가 위 보험을 납입 중인 사실은 인정되나, 위 각 보험계약이 환급가능한 보험인지에 관하여는 아무런 증거가 없으므로, 위 주장도 이유 없다.

㈑ 피고는 원고가 소외 9, 10에게 금전채권을 가지고 있다고 주장하나, 을 제16호증의 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하여, 위 주장도 이유 없다.

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

(1) As seen above, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the process, period and failure of marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age of the plaintiff and the defendant, health, original and the defendant's occupation, income, livelihood, etc. of the plaintiff and the defendant, the degree of contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division is determined to the extent of 35%, and the amount of contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division is determined to the extent of 65%.

D. Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the process of acquiring the said property subject to division, the form, the name of ownership, and the current status of the use thereof, the method of division of the property subject to division shall be reverted to the current ownership, and as a result, if there is any part that falls short of the amount ultimately reverted to the Plaintiff according to the ratio of division of property, it

Article 70,000,000 won, which is equivalent to the property value of KRW 8,50,00,00 in the current name of the Plaintiff, shall be limited to the small property in its name, and this shall be limited to KRW 700,000,00 that is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s property division ratio of KRW 35% among the total net property amount of KRW 1,972,878,068.

x) After all, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a property division of KRW 700,000,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of full payment.

3. Determination on designation and disposition of custody of a person with parental authority

A. Considering the circumstances where the plaintiff raises the principal of the case, etc., it is reasonable to allow the plaintiff to exercise parental authority and custody over the principal of the case for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of the case, since it is reasonable to allow the plaintiff to exercise parental authority and custody over the principal of the case. Thus, the plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case.

B. Next, although the defendant does not directly rear the principal of this case, he did not change his father who is jointly responsible for the fostering of the principal of this case with the plaintiff. Thus, as one of the cases where the principal of this case is responsible, he is liable to pay the child support to the plaintiff until he reaches the age of majority.

Furthermore, examining the amount of the child support to be paid by the Defendant, taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the age of the principal of the case, the state of the king, and the present residential area, etc., the amount of the child support to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is reasonable to be KRW 400,000 per person of the principal of the case. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the child support to the Plaintiff at KRW 1,20,000 per month from the day following the day when the judgment of the case became final and conclusive until May 31, 2013 before the principal of the case becomes an adult, KRW 80,00 per month from the next day to May 30, 2015 before the principal of the case becomes an adult, and KRW 300,000 per month from the next day to August 20, 201.

C. In light of the above facts, the visitation right of the defendant cannot be entirely excluded from the scope of the visitation right. As such, comprehensively taking account of the plaintiff, the defendant's emotional condition, property relation, occupation, living level, age of the principal of the case, current custody situation, and the desire of the parties, setting the contents of the visitation right as described in the disposition is reasonable for not only the psychological stability and welfare of the principal of the case but also the plaintiff and the defendant.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money claim are justified, and the defendant's counterclaim divorce and consolation money claim are dismissed as it is without merit. The claim for division of property, the person with parental authority and the disposition of custody shall be determined as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong-won