2014dan105099 (Counterclaim), divorce, consolation money, etc.

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

3. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 164,00,000 won as division of property and 5% per annum from the day following the day when the instant judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. The person with parental authority and the care of the principal of the case shall designate the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

5. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays 300,000 won monthly from October 30, 2014 to May 15, 2017 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) as the child support of the principal of the case.

6. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person in combination with a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim;

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall be divorced from the defendant. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 30,00,000 won as consolation money and 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the sentencing day of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall be designated as a person with parental authority and guardian of the principal of this case. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 1,00,000 won per month as child support of the principal of this case from February 1, 2014 to May 15, 2017.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The report of marriage and the plaintiff and the defendant filed a marriage report on 1992. The plaintiff and the defendant filed a marriage report with C (the birth of 1993) and the principal of the case. 2) The details of the marriage life and the failure

A) The Plaintiff and the Defendant were living together at the time of loyalty after marriage, and had been living at Daegu around April 1993, and the Defendant employed ** in the hospital and had been living at the weekend.

B) From 2006 to 2006, the Plaintiff was doubtful between the Defendant and the female employees working in the hospital, and the Defendant began dispute with the Defendant, which was only once a month, and the Plaintiff did not have any objection against the Defendant.

C) The Defendant was in Daegu while serving around July 2012, and around October 2012, the Defendant was employed in * Company, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued disputes over economic issues.

D) Around March 2013, the Defendant was hospitalized in an emergency room by the Defendant’s mother, but did not notify the Plaintiff of his death on May 2013.

E) On March 2014, the Plaintiff demanded a divorce to the Defendant, and the Defendant refused to pay consolation money, and the Plaintiff continued to work around April 2014.

3) From April 2014, 201, the period of separate residence was in progress until now.

4) At present, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not make any effort for the recovery of relationship after separation.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), family affairs investigator's investigation report, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim divorce claim

A claim for a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim for divorce has a reason under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.

Considering the fact that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant wanting divorce and that the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant deepens, and that the marriage seems to have deteriorated to the extent that it is impossible to recover, it can be recognized that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has reached the failure.

In addition, in light of the circumstances surrounding the marriage life and the failure as seen earlier, it cannot be readily concluded that the conflict that caused the failure of the marriage of this case was caused by the responsibility of the plaintiff or the defendant, and since it is deemed that the plaintiff's fault and the defendant's fault that did not sufficiently explain to the plaintiff about the plaintiff's fault and economic problem, which did not sufficiently explain the plaintiff about the plaintiff's fault and the economic problem and contributed to the plaintiff, it is judged that both the plaintiff and the defendant are liable for the failure of the marriage and that the degree of their responsibility is equal.

C. Determination on the claim of consolation money and counterclaim

The plaintiff asserts that the main liability for the failure of a matrimonial relationship has arisen due to the failure of a marriage due to the defendant's economic influence and disregarding, and that the defendant sought compensation against the defendant, claiming that the principal liability for the failure of a matrimonial relationship has occurred due to the plaintiff's waste, drinking, verbal abuse, etc., and thus, the plaintiff sought compensation against the plaintiff by asserting that the main liability for the failure of a matrimonial relationship has occurred due to the plaintiff's failure of a matrimonial relationship. However, the plaintiff and the defendant's evidence submitted by each plaintiff alone are insufficient to accept each claim and there is no other evidence to support it. Rather, all of them

3. Determination on the claim for division of property in the principal lawsuit

(a) Details of property formation;

1) On December 31, 1974, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on land that was the father of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to marriage.

2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased Daegu Location Housing in KRW 135,00,000 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on 2001. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant acquired the obligation to refund the lease deposit of KRW 51,00,000 with respect to the said Housing at the time, and 20,000,000 that were paid from the Defendant’s father and 30,000,000 that were loaned under the name of the Defendant and 30,000,000 that were loaned under the name of the Defendant.

3) The Plaintiff obtained non-permanent income while operating a female head shop or working for a single worker in a marital life. The Plaintiff has earned income of KRW 1,500,000 per month while working for marina.

4) 피고는 혼인 후 1년 정도 충주시에서 근무하다가 1993.경부터 1999.경까지 대구 소재 회사에서 근무하였고, 1999년부터 2003년까지는 중고 컴퓨터 매매업을 하였으며, 2003년부터 2012. 7.경까지 **병원에 근무하였고, 2012. 10.경부터 ##회사에서 근무하면서 월 2,800,000원 정도의 소득을 얻고 있다.

(b) Property and value to be divided;

1) Property to be divided: It is as shown in the list of annexed property to be divided;

(ii) the value of the property to be divided;

A) Plaintiff’s net property: -3,969,018 won

B) Defendant’s net property: 540,472,361 won

C) Total amount of net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant: 536,503,343 won

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 11 (including each number), the appraiser's market price appraisal result, the order to submit financial transaction information, the results of the inquiry, the inquiry results, the family investigator's investigation report, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination on the disputed portion

A) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s deposit claim amounting to KRW 3,600,000 is owned by the O bank, and this is subject to division of property. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant currently holds the deposit claim amounting to KRW 3,600,000 on the O bank only due to the result of the instant court’s request for submission of financial transaction information, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the above assertion is rejected.

B) The Defendant asserted that the instant land is the land owned by the father of the Defendant, and that it is not subject to division of property because the Defendant’s father had cultivated the Defendant’s punishment while managing the Defendant’s father. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the aforementioned

Furthermore, even if the above assertion by the defendant is purporting that the land of this case is not subject to division of property with the defendant's unique property, the land of this case is subject to division in cases where the other party is recognized to have prevented the reduction of the property by cooperation in the maintenance of the unique property or has cooperated in increasing the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Meu565, Jun. 12, 2001). According to the above recognition facts, although the defendant acquired the land of this case before marriage with the plaintiff, although the plaintiff was able to acquire the land of this case before marriage with the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff was not subject to division of property, it is reasonable to view that the land of this case is subject to division of property. Accordingly, the above argument is not accepted. However, it is decided to consider the rate of division of property as determined by the division of property.

C) The Defendant borrowed KRW 10,00,000 from her natives to raise the study expenses of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s children C, which is alleged to be the object of division of property. However, the written evidence Nos. 10 and 11 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is not accepted.

D) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 16,343,755 remaining after borrowing KRW 20,000 from the Defendant’s leakage or00 is also the subject of division of property. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,00,000 from 00, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is rejected.

E) The Defendant bears the obligation to pay the 8,337,279 won Masp loans to the O bank, and asserts that the total amount is subject to division of property. However, according to the Defendant’s response to the order to submit financial transaction information in this court, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the Defendant withdraws 2,500,000 won from the Mspon loan account in October 2014 at the attorney’s fee. Since money used as litigation costs is difficult to be deemed to have been used in relation to the formation and maintenance of common property of the couple, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s Mson loans to the 00 bank is subject to division of property only the remainder 5,827,279 won excluding the remainder of 2,500,000 won used as attorney’s fee.

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

1) Division ratio of property is recognized as Plaintiff 30% and Defendant 70% in consideration of the period and age of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant had owned the instant land before marriage.

2) Method of division of property

In light of all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the form of the property subject to division, ownership, and use situation, it is reasonable to determine the ownership and responsibility of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s active and negative property as they are in their current names. In this context, it is reasonable for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff KRW 164,00,000 according to the following formula in cash.

[Calculation Form] 536,503,343 won X Plaintiff’s division of property - 30% of the Plaintiff’s net assets -3,969,018 won = 164,00,000 won (less than KRW 1,00,000) in total of net assets of the Plaintiff and the Defendant

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 164,00,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day after the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of full payment.

4. Determination on a claim for designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian and a claim for child support

(a) A request for designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian;

Considering the background of marriage and failure of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age of the principal of the case, the friendly density with the principal of the case recognized by the family investigation report, the custody environment, etc., it is reasonable to designate the defendant as the person with parental authority and the protector of the principal

(b) Claim for child support;

Considering the age and status of the principal of this case, the age, environment, occupation, economic ability, equity of burden, etc. of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is reasonable to pay to the Defendant KRW 300,000 per month from October 30, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, to May 15, 2017, the principal of this case, from October 30, 2014, as the child support of the principal of this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant's claims for the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim divorce are accepted due to the grounds, and the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim consolation money claim are dismissed without any grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition with regard to the property division claim, the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim person, the designation of the person with parental authority and the child support claim.