2. The plaintiff's claim for consolation money and division of property is dismissed.

3. To designate a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of the case as the defendant;

4. The Defendant shall bear the child support for the principal of the case.

5. The plaintiff may visit the principal of the case by the day before the principal of the case reaches his majority. The defendant shall actively cooperate with the interview right of the plaintiff and shall not interfere with such right.

(a) A given period: Second week, fourth week, 18:0 to Sundays 18:00 (two days and three days); and

(c) Method: The plaintiff, at the residence of the principal of the case or the place promised with the defendant, has received a delivery of the principal of the case and consulted with him in an appropriate and safe manner and then transferred the principal of the case

D. The Plaintiff and the Defendant may, after prior consultation, change the schedule, place, and method of the visitation.

6. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

D. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Division of property 30 million won and the interest thereon from the day after this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5% interest shall be paid. He shall designate a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of the case as the plaintiff.

The defendant is 70,000 won per June 19, 203 from the date this judgment was rendered to the plaintiff as the child support for the principal of this case.

payment shall be made at the end of each month.

A. The facts of recognition (1) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married on September 1, 2013 and filed a report of marriage on July 25, 2014. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had the principal of the case as their children. (2) On January 1, 2014, the Defendant did not have the Plaintiff at the future, but would not use a knife at the time of wrapping. (3) The Defendant written a letter, respectively, within the meaning of apology, since there were excessive cases in wraping. (3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant written a written statement, stating that the Plaintiff would not have any force or hedge force.)

On October 9, 2014, the Defendant promised that the Plaintiff will not take a bath in and out of the house. Our husband and wife, when they speak to their families, have a good example (title, etc.).

(3) On August 24, 2015, 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 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 hers her

7. From October 2016 to July 2017, Defendant received child support of KRW 600,000 to KRW 800,000 per month from Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 4, family affairs investigator's investigation report, the whole purport of oral argument

B. Determination

(1) Divorce claim: there are reasons under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that there was an error of assault, intimidation, frequent drinking, Cheating, neglect of duty to support, etc. by the Defendant, the facts acknowledged earlier alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed an assault against the Plaintiff and his/her friendly family member, or committed a mistake in drinking frequently, unjust act, neglect of duty to support, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this (it is recognized that the Plaintiff suffered the Plaintiff’s remaining son and her wife according to the video of evidence No. 7, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered the son and her wife, and even if it was caused by the Defendant’s assault, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were unable to recover the marriage during the period of their separation from the end of 2014, and that the Defendant actively wants to divorce with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s marriage did not have a major fault on the part of the Defendant regarding the dissolution of marriage as above, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for consolation money is accepted by the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce. (2) The Plaintiff’s claim for consolation money is groundless.

The plaintiff's assertion seeking the payment of consolation money to the defendant on a different premise is without merit, as the plaintiff's principal mistake and the defendant's marital relationship are not recognized to have been broken down.

2. Determination on the claim for division of property

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff shall divide the property with respect to the land in the name of the defendant, the lease deposit, deposit, vehicle, public official pension, etc. of the Geum-gu, Busan, Seo-dong apartment in the name of the defendant, and since the plaintiff's contribution to the formation and maintenance of the above property is at least 20%, the defendant shall pay 30 million won as the division of property to the plaintiff.

According to the whole purport of the evidence Nos. 7 through 10 and the whole purport of the pleading of the evidence Nos. 7 through 10, the defendant.

12. 4. 4. On June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired each piece of land in the Geumdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Jakdong-dong-Jakdong-dong-Jakdong-Jakdong-gu-gu, and on October 9, 2012, leased each piece of land in the amount of KRW 120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and00,000.

Considering the fact that the Defendant acquired the above property before the marriage, that the living period of the original and the Defendant is only one year, that the Defendant lives as the Defendant’s salary during the marriage period, and that the Plaintiff owns the apartment in its name, it is not recognized that the Plaintiff has contributed to the formation and maintenance of the property under the name of the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property is without merit.

3. Determination as to the bringing-up of children

(a) Person in parental authority and guardian of the principal of the case: Designation of the defendant; and

[Ground of determination] Although the Plaintiff raises the principal of this case from the birth of the principal of this case to the present date, the principal of this case was unilaterally set up in guard room, restaurant, etc. without consultation with the Defendant on July 2017 and November 2017. The Defendant shared childcare while living with the principal of this case, and the relationship with the principal of this case is also smooth. Such determination is made in consideration of various circumstances, such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s occupation, income, parenting environment, parenting situation, the age of the principal of this case, and the parties’ intention.

B. Child support: the Defendant, who is the custodian, shall be borne by him.

[Ground of determination] The age and occupation, import, property, intention of the party concerned, marriage dissolution and separation from original and defendant's age

Considering the circumstances, such as circumstances, the aforementioned determination is made.

C. The Plaintiff, who is not a child-care parent (ex officio determination) has the right to interview with the principal of the case, unless it is contrary to the welfare of the principal of the case. Taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, status of fostering, living environment, and the place of residence of the principal of the case, ex officio determination as described in Paragraph 5 of the disposition is reasonable for the emotional stability and welfare of the principal of the case.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for divorce shall be accepted on the ground of the reason, and the consolation money and the claim for division of property shall be dismissed on the ground of each ground. The claim for designation of person with parental authority and custodian, the claim for child support, and the visitation right