Busan Address

Original State of origin

Attorney Lee Do-young

Seoul Address

Original State of origin

Law Firm Doz.

(************************)

The case principal's address and reference domicile are the same as the plaintiff

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,00,00 won as consolation money, and 5% per annum from September 17, 2014 to January 26, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 109,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of the case.

5. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 400,00 per month per principal of the instant principal from August 1, 2014 to the day before the principal of the instant case becomes adult, as the child support for the principal of the instant case, at the end of each month.

6. The plaintiff's remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed.

7. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

8. Paragraphs 2 and 5 can be provisionally executed.

A. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant reported the marriage on July 2, 1994, and on April 2, 199, after reporting the marriage divorce on April 2, 199, they are legally married couple who reported the marriage again on August 24, 199, and they were married with son Minimum E (19** *.*. *. * the birth) and two persons of the case.

2) During the marriage period, the Defendant neglected to his/her family members, such as having no family members and having no family members, and paid the Defendant’s mother who mainly lived with his/her income other than the Plaintiff with his/her living activity.

3) Around 2006, the Defendant had an exchange of contact with other women and attempted suicide immediately after having complied with the Plaintiff.

4) The Defendant, without sufficient consultation with the Plaintiff, had his families located in Busan from around 2009, and lived in Busan as a married Seoul, but did not frequently lived in Busan.

5) The Defendant’s mother and tearE, and the instant principals have a lot of conflict due to differences in nature and values, etc., and the Defendant did not properly conduct arbitration to improve the relationship between both sides.

6) The Defendant attempted suicide and went through the nature of suicide. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant’s mother, who talked with the instant principal as a knife and brue, when she talked about a problem that is not good between the Defendant’s mother and the instant principalCC.

7) The Defendant has no appraisal to the Plaintiff from six months after the marriage. The Defendant stated to the wife that the Plaintiff would not give any appraisal.

8) The Plaintiff and the instant principal began to live separately from the Defendant’s satur on the date when the Defendant assaulted the instant principal CCTV, and the Plaintiff is currently raising the instant principal.

9) On May 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a family survey by this court on May 26, 2015, led the Plaintiff’s household room and pushed the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 9, 19 (including each number), and family investigation report

statement, the purport of the whole pleading

B. Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's fault, such as not taking due care of the plaintiff and his family members during the marriage period, not making an effort to assistant principal with his family, and even assaulting his family, has reached a failure to the extent that the plaintiff and the defendant's marital relationship cannot continue. This constitutes a ground for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is reasonable.

Furthermore, since the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has reached a failure due to the above reasons attributable to the defendant, and it is apparent that the plaintiff has suffered mental loss, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff. Considering the marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant, the circumstances leading up to the failure of the marriage, the degree of the failure of the marriage liability, the economic ability of the defendant, etc., the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 15,00

Therefore, the plaintiff is divorced from the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 15,00,00, and the damages for delay calculated as 15% per annum under the Civil Act from September 17, 2014 to January 26, 2016, which is the day following the day on which the plaintiff served a copy of the complaint of this case on the defendant as the plaintiff's claim. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated as 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 the claim for division of property

(a) Details of the formation of property;

1) The Plaintiff worked as accounting staff, sales staff, etc. during the marriage period, and met part of the living expenses while serving as a beauty artist from April 2007, and his mother has been in charge of raising the maximum E and the instant principal and household affairs together with his mother.

2) The Defendant worked as a car repair shop during the marriage period, etc. while operating the car center, and was closed around 2006. From around 2009, the Defendant was employed as a water, daily worker, etc. in Seoul.

3) The defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of legacy on February 24, 1996 ************ before************** on November 8, 1995 hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case").

4) The mother of the original defendant's mother, KimF, a Busan* Dong* Dong*********** representative*************** a square of square of square meters of square meter and its ground floor.

The above two real estates were owned, but they were completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant on April 14, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18870, Apr. 15, 2005>

5) The KimF currently occupies and uses the instant house.

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 10, 17, Eul evidence No. 3 (including each number), the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

(b) Property to be divided and its value;

1) The instant housing in the name of the Defendant (market 282,00,000,000)

2) The instant land in the name of the Defendant (city 30,00,000,00)

3) Total net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant KRW 312,00,000

[Grounds for Recognition] Evidence A No. 18-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(c) Whether it falls under the category of subdivision;

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant house is owned by his mother KimF, and thus is not subject to division of property.

According to the facts that the Defendant acquired the instant house from KimF, as seen earlier, and according to the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2-2, KimF completed provisional registration for the said house on September 15, 2006 on the same day, and on September 2, 2015, on September 2, 2015, the fact that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of July 28, 2015 based on the above provisional registration.

However, in light of the above circumstances, even if the Defendant acquired the instant house from KimF, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff contributed directly and indirectly to economic activities and family labor in acquiring and maintaining it.

In addition, the provisional registration under the name of KimF was made at the time of the closure of the defendant's transfer registration, and one year and six months after the termination of the defendant's ownership transfer registration, and there is no evidence to deem that KimF paid the transfer price to the defendant at the time of the completion of the above provisional registration and the registration of transfer of ownership, and the transfer registration under the name of KimF was made after the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was broken down and the lawsuit of this case was filed at the original level, the above provisional registration under the name of KimF may not be excluded from the property division subject to the property division of this case, which was the defendant's active property at the time of the failure of marriage on the ground that KimF completed

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

1) Division ratio of property

As examined below, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff is bringing up the instant principal in the future; (b) the Defendant is also obligated to support the mother; (c) the developments leading up to the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant housing and land; (d) the period of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (c) the degree of contribution of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to subdivision; (d) the process of marital life between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (e) the process of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (e) the age, occupation, and livelihood of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the division ratio of property division is reasonable; and

2) The method of division of property

Considering the circumstances indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the ownership name and form of the property subject to division, the process of acquisition and maintenance, the situation of use, and the convenience of division, etc., it is appropriate to divide the instant land and housing, which is the property subject to division, into a conclusive reversion to the Defendant, and to divide the amount of the property ultimately attributable to the Plaintiff according to the division ratio of property by the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff money.

3) Property division amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: KRW 109,00,000

[Calculation Form] ① The Plaintiff’s share according to the division of property among the Plaintiff’s net property: 109, 200, 000 won

[ = 312, 00, 000 won x 35% of the sum of net property of the plaintiff and the defendant x 35%]

② Division of property that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff

① The amount set forth in the above paragraph is less than 109,00,000 won

E. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 109,00,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated with 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Determination as to the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian and child support

Taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the plaintiff is more closely related to the principal of this case and currently raising the principal of this case, the marital life and distress of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age and parenting of the principal of this case, the intent of fostering the plaintiff, the health status of the defendant, and the income and property status of the plaintiff and the defendant, etc., it is reasonable to designate the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and the guardian of the principal of this case for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of this case, and the defendant, as the child support of the principal of this case commenced on August 1, 2014 for the plaintiff as the child support of the principal of this case, and to pay 400,000 won for each principal of this case to the plaintiff as of August 1, 2014.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is accepted on the grounds of the above recognition, and only part of the claim is accepted on the grounds of the above recognition, and concerning division of property, designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, and child support.

as above, it is so decided as per Disposition.