May 16, 2017

A. Upon receiving KRW 108,00,000 from the Plaintiff, the Defendant performed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the real estate indicated in the attached list 1 list to the Plaintiff for division of property on the ground of the fixed date of this judgment.

B. The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 108,00,000 to the Defendant at the same time upon receipt of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the division of property from the Defendant with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 list.

2. The appeal against the Plaintiff’s claim for consolation money, remaining appeal against the claim for division of property, the Defendant’s claim for division of property, and the claim for child support are dismissed, respectively.

3. One-fourth of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be divorced with the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of solatium 50 million won and the amount of solatium 5% per annum from January 25, 2016 to the date the judgment of the first instance is rendered, and the amount calculated by 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 578,204,504 won as division of property, and the amount of 55% per annum from the next day to the date the judgment of the first instance is rendered, and the amount of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The Defendant shall designate the Plaintiff as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the instant principal. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff one million won per the principal of the instant case as child support from the day after the copy of the complaint is delivered to the majority of the instant principal to the last day of each month (the extension of the claim for division of property, and reduction of the portion of damages).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The Plaintiff: The portion of consolation money and the portion of division of property in the judgment of the first instance are modified as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant: The part of the first instance judgment regarding division of property and child support shall be changed as follows. The Defendant shall be paid KRW 315,00,000 from the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 315,00,000, and the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the fixed date of the judgment regarding the real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be performed with respect to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 315,00,000 to the Defendant at the same time when the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the fixed date of the judgment has been implemented with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list from the Defendant. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the child support of the instant principal from December 1, 201 to (1 omitted) the monthly child support amounting to KRW 170,000 and KRW 85

Since the judgment of the court of first instance on the part of divorce or designation of a person fostering, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remaining part except for the part of divorce and designation of a person fostering

2. Determination on the claim of consolation money

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Determination of divorce and consolation money claim” among the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, even if the Plaintiff considered all of the claims supplemented by the trial except for the addition of the following matters; and (b) therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act

Then, the fourth 19th 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance added “(the plaintiff is not a reason to consider in calculating consolation money for the defendant, unless there is any evidence to prove that the defendant participated in the above act of the non-party 1, as well as in the non-party 1’s claim against the defendant, considering that the non-party 1, who is a female of the defendant, sent an insulting message to the plaintiff via ○○○○○, etc., the amount of consolation money for the defendant is high.”

3. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) Property and value to be divided;

[2] Attached Table 2: (The details of the detailed statement of the Divided Property List in the judgment of the court of first instance were corrected from “150,081,580 won” to “0 won”; and (3) the details of the Divided Property List in the judgment of the court of first instance were as follows.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(i) An account for other securities;

The Plaintiff asserts that, in the case of shares 45,650,406 won of the shares capital of Yuan Securities, pro-Japanese 3 million won was created by collecting part of the money, scholarships, which was received in life or life manners by making pro-Japanese 3 million won the form of a paper money, and there was no contribution by the Defendant to this point, and that it should be excluded from the property subject to division of property, since the Defendant did not participate in the management of the money through the securities account.

On the other hand, the property division system mainly aims at liquidation and distribution of the actual common property acquired during marriage. Although the property of either spouse is not subject to division in principle, even if it is unique property, the other party actively cooperates in the maintenance of unique property and cooperates in the increase of property, it may be subject to division (see Supreme Court Decision 92Meu501, May 25, 1993, etc.). In the case of the above Plaintiff’s security account under the name of the Plaintiff, there are circumstances where it appears that the said account would primarily raise the Plaintiff’s own investment money. However, considering that the said account was operated during the marital life and the Defendant obtained fixed income, such as going through the workplace during the marriage period, and was engaged in economic activities at home, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not have contributed to the maintenance and increase of property through the said securities account.

Therefore, the above securities account should be considered as a real marital joint property without distinction from the name of the couple.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Calculation of the lump sum payment of the public official pension

The plaintiff argues that if the defendant's national pension can be calculated as a lump sum and included in the details of division of property, the plaintiff's public officials pension is also calculated as a lump sum and included in the subjects of division of property as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance, but the judgment of the court of first instance is calculated as a lump sum payment only for the plaintiff's public officials pension and it

According to the revised Public Officials Pension Act, as in January 1, 2016, the spouse who was divorced pursuant to the National Pension Act, which was enforced since January 1, 2016, also has a provision that the pension may be paid in installments where certain requirements are met under the Public Officials Pension Act (Article 46-3 of the Public Officials Pension Act). The part of the Plaintiff’s estimated retirement benefits, which has the characteristic of pension, is separate from the Defendant’s claim for a separate requirement, and as long as the Defendant’s national pension is not reflected in the Defendant’s active property, it

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) Loans owed to the defendant's mother

During the marriage period, the Defendant borrowed KRW 186 million from Nonparty 2, who is the mother of Nonparty 2, and repaid KRW 33.3 million among them, claimed that there remain a debt of KRW 150 million.

According to the results of the Korean National Bank's reply on May 16, 2016, the non-party 2 remitted the amount of KRW 56 million to the defendant on September 5, 2012, and KRW 30 million on March 26, 2014, the defendant remitted the amount of KRW 13 million on October 18, 2013, KRW 13 million to the non-party 2, and KRW 103 million on October 29, 2013, and KRW 350,000 to the non-party 2 on May 16, 2016 (the first time from December 201, 2013 to the third time). In light of the fact that the defendant did not simply forward the amount of KRW 100,000 to the non-party 2,500,000,000 to the non-party 2,500,000 won in the process of pleading, the defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge the amount of KRW 1006.5 billion.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) The market price of Dobong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The defendant asserts that the value of the apartment of this case (attached Form 2 (attached Form 1 / Defendant’s active property Nos. 1, 280,000 won) shall be evaluated as 535,00,000 won (267,500,000 won) according to the KB City tax, and that the higher average of 560,000,000 won (280,000 won) shall be applied to the apartment of this case (the value of 1/2 shares: 280,000,000 won) shall be higher than the ordinary market price, since he/she has taken the repair cost of 40,00,000 won around 204.

Therefore, in light of the circumstances that there is little room to view that the appraised value differs from that of the apartment of this case because the market price of the health zone and apartment is mainly affected by the fixed factors, such as the location and number of floors in the complex, and the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior construction has been conducted, there is no basis to calculate the market price of the apartment of this case by the reasons asserted by the defendant

The above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

1) Division ratio of property: Plaintiff 55%, Defendant 45%

[Ground for determination] The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, occupation, property, and economic power, process and period of marital life, background of marriage dissolution, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contribution to the formation and maintenance of the above divided property, the degree of contribution to the Defendant (around May 2009, the Plaintiff retired from the company accompanying the Defendant and did not have any particular income while performing public studies for acquiring professional engineer qualification during the period of time close to two years from May 2009, and the Plaintiff has continued to engage in economic activities without any gap. The Plaintiff’s benefit as of 2015 is the sum of the Plaintiff’s salary as of 57 million won and the Defendant’s salary is received more than the Defendant’s wage as of 35 million won, and the Plaintiff was receiving more benefits than the Defendant’s wage as of 35 million won, while the Plaintiff engaged in economic activities while bringing about the principal of the case, etc.) shall be determined as equal to the judgment of the first instance court.

2) The method of division of property: In light of the name and form of the property subject to division, acquisition details, convenience of division, etc., the Defendant shall have the Plaintiff registered the transfer of shares as to the 1/2 portion of the apartment of this case, and accordingly, the part of the amount ultimately attributable to the Defendant shall be paid in cash to the Defendant.

3) Property division amount to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant

[Calculation Form] ① The share of the defendant according to the ratio of division of property among the net property of the plaintiff and the defendant

Total net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 890,978,084 won x 45% =400,940,137 won

② Property division amount to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as the Defendant transferred 1/2 of the instant apartment to the Plaintiff: KRW 108,000,000, which lowers the following amounts:

400,940,137-(560,393,34-267,50,000) =108,046,803 won

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, as a result of the division of property, the Defendant is obligated to receive KRW 108,00,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, to perform the registration procedure for share transfer based on the division of property with respect to one-half share of the instant apartment. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 108,00,000 to the Defendant at the same time as the registration procedure for share transfer is implemented by the Defendant.

4. Determination on claims for child support

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part concerning “4.b. child support” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, even if the defendant considered all the claims supplemented by the court, except for the addition of the following matters; and (b) thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

Then, following the 7th 18th 18th son of the judgment of the court of first instance, “(the defendant is not deemed to have fulfilled the obligation to pay the child support ordered by the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance on January 2016, when the plaintiff combines the amount using the credit card in the name of the defendant and the public charges paid by the defendant, and thus, the child support in the past should not be recognized. However, the entries in the evidence No. 13-1, 2, and 14-2 are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff used the above money, and even if it appears that the amount using the credit card and the public charges overlap partially, it cannot be deemed that the defendant fulfilled the obligation to pay the child support ordered by

5. Conclusion

Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the claim for consolation money is justifiable, this part of the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the part concerning the claim for division of property is determined as above. Since the part concerning the claim for division of property among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the part concerning the claim for division of property is partially accepted, and it is modified as above, and the remaining part is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed. The part concerning the

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-hun (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-hunon