[2] Whether a party to a marriage is excluded from the party to the legal relationship related to the return, in a case where a wedding or worship was received by a relative, such as parents, other than the party to the marriage, but it should be returned (negative)

[3] Whether expenses directly paid by one spouse for a married life should be refunded in a case where a marital life fails in a short period (affirmative)

[4] In a case where the marriage between Gap and Eul occurred in a short period, the case holding that Gap, the responsible spouse for the failure of the marriage, has the duty to return the other spouse Eul's estimated costs

[2] The purpose of proving the establishment of a marriage and arranging the parties or the parties in the case of the establishment of a marriage is to promote the liquidation of the parties or the parties in the case of the establishment of a marriage. If this is to be returned, the parties or the parties in the marriage shall be the primary right holder and the parties in the case of the return of the marriage. Of course, it is reasonable in the principle of equity to view that the actual provider and the recipient shall have the rights and obligations of an indivisible return together with the parties in the case of the receipt of the weddings and the weddings between the parties in the marriage and their relatives, other than the parties in the marriage. In such a case, the parties

[3] In a case where a short-term breakdown of a marital life, even if one spouse occupies the other spouse at his/her own expense in order to use it in the marital life, it shall be deemed that it still belongs to the ownership of the other spouse. Thus, even if one spouse delivers money to the other spouse for the purpose of purchasing a house to live together after the marriage, the said money may be returned in accordance with the principle of equity, unless there are special circumstances, if the marital relationship is no longer reached within the short-term period. Furthermore, such a legal principle accords with the principle of equity to deem that it is equally applicable in a case where one spouse delivers money to the other spouse for the purpose of purchasing a house, as well as where one spouse delivers money to the other spouse for the purpose of purchasing a house, or directly pays the expenses for the test of a house.

[4] In a case where the marriage relationship between Gap and Eul occurred in a short period, the case holding that Gap, the responsible spouse for the failure of the marriage, has the duty to return the other spouse Eul's estimated costs

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 30 million won as consolation money and 5% per annum from March 30, 2010 to December 16, 2010, and 20% per annum from December 17, 2010 to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining claim for consolation money and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim damages are dismissed, respectively.

4. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the amount of KRW 840 million with interest of KRW 840 million and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 30, 2010 to the date of full payment.

5. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claim for division of property is dismissed.

6. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) by 10% in total, including the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) by 90% in total.

7. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Counterclaim: (1) of this case and the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 50 million won as consolation money, division of property, 81.7 million won as division of property, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

(a) Circumstances of marriage;

(1) On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the marriage report on September 14, 2009, after having ever gone through a wedding, and having gone through a new marriage.

(2) Both the Plaintiff’s parents and the Defendant’s parents had a considerable re-existent power. During the marriage process, the Plaintiff’s parents sent KRW 1 billion to the Defendant’s parents at the expense of predicting the Defendant’s parents, and the Defendant’s parents sent KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff’s parents. Moreover, on May 27, 2009, the Defendant acquired 7/10 shares of Samsungdong Samsungdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from May 27, 2009 (hereinafter “the detailed address omitted”) (the shares of KRW 3/10 are acquired in the name of the Defendant’s mother Nonparty), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million with the test cost of the instant apartment prior to the wedding ceremony.

(3) On September 18, 2009, immediately after the marriage of the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant purchased the Plaintiff’s membership “t sports club” in the amount of KRW 60,77 million.

B. Disputes arising from monetary issues

After the marriage process and marriage, the Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently disputed the following monetary issues. However, the Defendant had a complaint stating that “The Defendant intended to make up for the Plaintiff’s excessive consumption or mistake due to the fact that the Plaintiff had received a large pre-determination cost from the Plaintiff,” and that “the Defendant was unable to point out the Plaintiff’s excessive consumption or mistake,” and that there was a face that the marital fighting occurred frequently.

(1) Before the wedding ceremony, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the funeral with the value of her brine by himself. The Plaintiff had a dispute on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff’s brine of part of the said money to the female and the male and female brine who participated in the brine’s brine with the money to the female and the male and female brine who participated in the brine.”

(2) During the period of a new package tour, the Plaintiff did not agree on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, which stated that “I am to purchase a cosmetic equivalent to KRW 250,000 as a gift from her own money; and (b) the Defendant did not comply with any of its opinions.”

(3) On October 26, 2009, the Defendant moved to the department store to die the Plaintiff’s daily gift. The Plaintiff’s defect that “((the 4.50,000 family price) on the fixed place and (the 300,000 family price) on the fixed place and the 300,000 family price),” and the Defendant stated that “I will die only on the fixed place,” and there was marital fighting on this day.

(4) On November 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased a daily gift of an amount of KRW 500,000 from a woman to her mother; (b) however, the Defendant again concluded a couple’s fighting by deeming that “the Plaintiff had made an excessive gift.”

(5) 2010. 1. 1. 신정에 원고와 피고가 원고의 할머니 댁을 방문하였다가 세뱃돈으로 합계 160만 원을 받았는데, 원고가 “그 돈으로 할머니에게 용돈 50만 원을 드리고, 남동생에게 생일선물로 50만 원을 주자.”고 하자, 피고가 “이는 지나치다.”고 하여 다시 부부싸움을 하였다. 그 과정에서 피고는 처음으로 “이혼하자.”는 말을 하였다.

C. Disputes arising from religious issues

Although the Plaintiff’s House believed that the Plaintiff’s husband and wife believed the Plaintiff’s husband and the Defendant’s husband and wife believed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband and wife would be able to make a payment of the Plaintiff’s husband and wife as a Buddhist religion after the marriage. However, after the marriage, the Plaintiff’s mother and mother were to conduct a missionary work against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife’s husband and wife were to have the Defendant opened the Plaintiff’s husband and wife’s husband and her husband and her husband and her husband and her husband and she was able to go against the Defendant’s husband and her husband and her husband and she did not respect the Defendant for religious issues.

(d) Disputes arising from sexual surgery;

(1) Since the Defendant used a large number of negos in the Plaintiff’s appearance, there was frequently an expression of the Plaintiff’s tea or appearance with words and attitudes, and thus, it was difficult for the Defendant to force the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff had undergone a pair of sex surgery before a few years of marriage, and the Defendant believed that, from the time of the Plaintiff’s teaching, the Plaintiff did not enter the Plaintiff’s pair shape, and that, at the time of marriage, the Plaintiff had already made an implied promise to re-malute a pair of sex surgery.

(3) On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant went to the sex department as well as the Plaintiff’s Stockholm surgery. At that place, the Defendant strongly demanded the Plaintiff to re-explosion, and the Plaintiff came to conflict by saying, “The Plaintiff would come to think about five years later.” The Defendant, who accepted the Defendant’s agreement to re-explosion with the Defendant prior to the marriage, that “after the Plaintiff’s marriage with the Defendant, the Defendant did not comply with the commitment as soon as the marriage occurred.” Moreover, even thereafter, the Plaintiff’s re-operation problem did not go to its own intent, and the Plaintiff’s complaint was expressed at any time against the Plaintiff’s parents.

(4) On November 25, 2009, the Defendant returned home under the influence of alcohol and the currency of the Plaintiff, which led to the Plaintiff and the telephone conversations. The Plaintiff got contact with the Defendant’s parents, and kisk the Defendant, and the Defendant’s parents reported the disappearance against the Defendant. At the time of her self-determination, the Defendant’s parents returned home and locked. At that end, the Defendant’s parents were forced to undergo a double pooling operation against the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff rejected it again.

(5) In the event that the Plaintiff talks with the Plaintiff in a way different from his/her judgment due to a financial problem or a pair of sub-operations, the Defendant received “the Plaintiff has a “accident at the level of kindergarten students,” and received “the lack of balanced comprehensive thinking,” and had a lot of complaints against the Plaintiff.”

(6) On November 27, 2009, the Defendant made it clear that the Plaintiff had a complaint against the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s personality differences, abortion problems (before that time, the Plaintiff’s abortion was born), comprehensive accident history differences, intellectual level differences, predivating cost differences, cultural differences, and aesthetic sense differences, while visiting the wife’s body and communicating with the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

(7) The following day, the Plaintiff, saying, “I would like to think about the problem of double pooling operations by February of the following year.” The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s horses “I would have followed the Plaintiff’s rears, because there was a novel, I would have dealt with the double pooling operations.” On January 2010, the Plaintiff considered that “I would think,” and the Plaintiff considered that “I would tell the Defendant.”

(e) The failure of a matrimonial relationship and circumstances following it;

(1) On February 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) sent and received mobile phone text messages from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff; (b) sent the instant text messages continuously to the Plaintiff, and (c) sent the instant text messages to the Plaintiff, and (d) sent the instant text messages to the Plaintiff, and (c) sent the instant text messages to the Plaintiff, and (d) sent the instant text messages to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff would be divorced by returning home.

(2) On February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff got a large shock, and the Plaintiff’s her her son tried to talk with the Defendant on the following day. The Defendant clearly expressed his her intention to divorce with the Plaintiff on the grounds that there is conflict between the Plaintiff due to “a pairing surgery problem, monetary problem, religious problem, etc.” in the same place, and then, the Plaintiff and the next day clarify her intention to divorce again in the next place.

(3) On February 14, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around 14, 2010, at a new marriage house, had a director with his own animals, and completed the report on the transfer of the instant apartment on March 3, 2010.

(4) On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff made a proposal to the Defendant that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced, and the Defendant shall return KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the form of division of property, deducting the amount equivalent to KRW 60,000,000 for membership rights,” from KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the form of division of property,” and the Defendant made a proposal to the effect that “the Defendant shall return KRW 7,40,00,000 in the form of a loan for consumption (Evidence No. 12)” (Evidence No. 13) and “the receipt for debt repayment” (Evidence No. 130,000,000) were completely repaid and issued to the Defendant.

(5) However, the Defendant did not reach an agreement because it presented a new “agreement” (Evidence A 14) with which the content of the return of the subsequent pre-determination cost on the following day is omitted, and stated that the Defendant did not intend to reach an agreement if the Plaintiff did not deliver the said “Agreement on Loan for Consumption” and the “written receipt of the debt full payment” with the seals affixed by the Plaintiff.

[Evidence Evidence: Each entry of Gap 1-18, 20 evidence, Eul 14 evidence (including each number), video, family affairs investigator's investigation report, the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Determination on the claim of divorce and consolation money for each principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. Determination on a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim for each counterclaim: Each acceptance of the plaintiff's claim for divorce on the principal lawsuit due to the grounds set forth in Article 840, Article 840, Article 840, subparagraph 3 and 6 of the Civil Act, and the defendant's counterclaim

B. Determination as to the claim of consolation money: 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from March 30, 2010 to December 16, 2010, the date following the delivery day of a copy of the complaint of this case, which falls under the scope of the defendant's obligation, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 17, 2010 to the day of complete payment, which is the date of this decision, and 30 million won per annum as calculated from December 17, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

C. Judgment on the counterclaim claim for solatium: Dismissal

【Reasons for Determination】

① Recognition of the failure of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant: The above fact of recognition; the Plaintiff and the Defendant wished to divorce through the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim; the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s emotional confrontation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are very heavy; at least, after the instant principal lawsuit was filed, all the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not endeavor to recover the marital relationship; circumstances leading to the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim; circumstances in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the terms of divorce between the Plaintiff and the Defendant after separation; and other various circumstances.

(2) The fundamental and principal liability for failure is against the defendant:

When there is a conflict between the couple due to a monetary problem or a sexual surgery, the defendant has deepened the conflict by distorting the matter with his own own own exclusive idea, raising unnecessary dissatisfactions, and promoting his own will. The defendant has been significantly lacking efforts to respect the plaintiff as his spouse or to resolve the conflict in a slive manner based on mutual understanding and trust and to maintain the marriage relationship. Ultimately, the defendant does not overcome the conflict arising from the unilateral complaint that the plaintiff does not follow his intention in the monetary problem or sexual surgery, without thoroughly overcoming the conflict arising from the unilateral complaint that the plaintiff does not follow his/her intention, which led to the situation where the plaintiff cannot follow the marriage by clearly expressing his/her intention to divorce several times after notifying the plaintiff of his/her intention to divorce. Thus, it is clear that the main responsibility for the failure of marriage is that the defendant is the defendant.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that, one of the causes of counterclaim, the Plaintiff’s family members treated the Defendant unfairly in the religious problem. The facts acknowledged in Article 1(c) are difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s family member unfairly treated the Defendant by infringing on the Plaintiff’s freedom not to have the Defendant’s religion. However, even if so, this is merely a very minor and incidental opportunity in the failure of marriage. Thus, if the Defendant’s mistake and opposition, the Defendant’s primary responsibility for the failure of marriage still exists to the Defendant.

3. Determination on the claim for restitution of the principal claim

A. The part of the claim for the estimated cost

(1) Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant asserts that "the person who has paid the estimated expenses is the plaintiff's adoptive parent and the person who has received the payment is the defendant's adoptive parent, and there is no plaintiff's standing to sue regarding the return of the estimated costs, and the defendant has no standing to sue, and the part regarding the estimated costs of restitution of the principal lawsuit of this case is unlawful." In the performance lawsuit, a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance has standing to sue, and the person who is asserted as the performance obligor has standing to be the defendant. The defendant's argument is without merit

(2) Judgment on the merits

(A) It is accepted for the purpose of proving the establishment of a marriage and promoting the liquidation of the parties or the parties in the event of the establishment of a marriage. It is similar to a donation under the condition of rescission of the marriage. In a case where the marriage has failed within the short period, it is consistent with the good faith to deem that the conditions of rescission of the donation have been fulfilled in accordance with the failure of the marriage. Thus, in such a case, the wedding and the honor should be returned to the provider. On the other hand, there is no right to actively claim the return of the marriage items and the honor provided by the obligor at the fault of the failure of the marriage.

(B) As seen earlier, the parties to the marriage are the primary right holder and the obligor in the event of the establishment of the marriage and the establishment of the marriage. In addition, in the event of the return of the marriage, the parties to the marriage shall be the primary right holder and the obligor in the case of the parties to the marriage. In addition, in the event of the receipt of the wedding and the art group between the parties to the marriage and the relatives, other than the parties to the marriage, the actual provider and the receiver shall have the right and obligation to make an indivisible return along with the parties to the marriage. In addition, even in this case, the parties to the marriage shall not be excluded from the legal relationship of the return of the wedding and the art

(C) Return to the instant case, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s marriage were caused by the failure at least five months from the time of the establishment of legal divorce, and it is reasonable to deem that the marriage relationship has reached the failure within a short period in light of social norms. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure of the marriage was not the spouse who is not the responsible spouse for the failure of the marriage. As such, the Defendant has the duty to return the Plaintiff’s estimated cost of KRW 1 billion.

B. The part concerning the claim for the artificial park expenses

(1) In a case where a short-term breakdown of a marital life, even if one spouse occupies the other spouse at his/her own expense in order to use it in the marital life, it shall still belong to the ownership of the other spouse. Thus, even if one spouse has the right to claim the return of the property or the return of the property to its original state. In addition, even if one spouse delivers the other spouse the money for the purchase of a house to live together after the marriage, the above money shall be returned to its original state unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 200Meu1257, 1264, Nov. 14, 2003). Furthermore, this legal principle accords with the principle of equity to view that it applies not only to the case where the other spouse delivers the money for the purchase of a house, but also to the case where the other spouse either grants the money for the purchase of a house or directly pays the expenses for the purchase of the interior.

(2) We look back to the instant case, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s marriage have failed in a short period. Therefore, in accordance with the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to refund the Plaintiff KRW 40 million for the test cost.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff for delay damages calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from March 30, 2010 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, to the day of full payment (for the above KRW 840 million, there is no reasonable ground for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation) of the plaintiff's obligation to perform.

4. Determination on the counterclaim for division of property

The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant a half of 38 million won, which is the sum of the benefits that the defendant provided to the plaintiff, such as ① the amount equivalent to 62.7 million won as a member of the "sports club" that the defendant's mother donated to the plaintiff after marriage, ② living expenses that the defendant paid to the plaintiff during marriage, apartment management expenses and living expenses incurred by the defendant, and rent for the apartment of this case owned by the defendant who resided in the plaintiff."

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s mother on September 18, 2009, following the formation of marriage and the formation of the marriage, donated the above membership to the Plaintiff on the part of the membership. If so, the above membership is a spouse who is responsible for the failure of marriage, and thus, the Defendant cannot claim the return of the above membership, taking into account that it is a spouse of the failure of marriage, and thus, it would result in the evasion of the legal principles on the return of the honor and the order, and thus, it cannot be allowed to allow the return of the membership in the form of division of property. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

The purpose of the division of property is to examine the part of the benefits provided by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the division of property is to divide the actual co-property achieved by the cooperation of both parties during the marriage. In principle, where the co-property remains at the time of resolving the marriage relationship, the division of property is to divide it, and it is not to liquidate the expenses paid between the parties or the benefits provided to the other party during the marriage. Therefore, this part of the

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for divorce between the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the claim for restitution of the principal lawsuit within the scope of recognition thereof, respectively, shall be accepted for each reason, and the remaining claim for consolation money and the counterclaim for division of property shall be dismissed for each reason.

Judges Jeong-won (Presiding Judge) Kim So-young;