2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from October 28, 2010 to August 6, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

4. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 54 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

5. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and care for the principal of the case.

6. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. 12,000,000 won shall be paid for the past child support of the principal of the case;

B. From August 7, 2012 to the day before the principal 1 becomes adult due to the future child support of the principal of this case, 1.6 million won per month and 80,000 won per month from the following day to the day before the principal 2 becomes adult shall be paid at the end of each month.

7. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

8. The above paragraphs 2 and 6 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The plaintiff and the defendant, who completed the marriage report on January 25, 1997, had the case principal under the slurbly as a legally married couple.

2) The Plaintiff, as a teacher, the Defendant, as a researcher, has moved into the weekend part during the marriage period with different working areas.

3) 원고는 결혼 후부터 시댁과의 갈등, 직장, 생활비 문제로 피고와 자주 다투었고, 화를 참지 못한 피고로부터 폭행을 당하기도 하였다(사건본인 1의 앞에서 폭행을 당한 적도 있다). 또한 원고는 2008. 8. 1. 피고의 동생과의 시비 끝에 길에서 밀쳐져 3주의 치료를 요하는 우측 주관절 염좌상과 우측 하퇴부 좌상을 입었다.

4) From around November 2009, the Defendant had a close contact with Nonparty 2, a real estate broker, several times a day. At that time, the Defendant accompanied each other’s children, and had a trip with the Daedae Dam, Jeonju, Gunsan, red, and pentcheon (which appears to have been divingd at the same lodging room). Nonparty 2 transferred money to the Defendant’s account on November 15, 2009 and January 9, 2010, and included up to the transfer note of “voluntary self-reliance” and “voluntary”.

5) Since around October 2009, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has become worse, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case seeking a divorce with the defendant in this court on October 18, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 14 through 16, 36, 37 (including each number), video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) In addition to the above fact of recognition that the defendant also consented to divorce, it is reasonable to view that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was no longer extinguished to the extent that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is no longer recoverable, and that the principal liability caused the failure of the marriage by violence and misconduct is a defendant who has damaged the trust between the couple to the extent that the trust between the couple cannot be complied with. Such mistake by the defendant constitutes a cause for judicial divorce as stipulated in subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 840 of the Civil Act.

2) Since the defendant's act of care is recognized in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental distress due to the failure of the plaintiff's marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is obligated to do so in money. Considering the circumstances leading up to the failure of the marriage as seen earlier, the marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age and occupation of the plaintiff and the defendant, and all other circumstances shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount as KRW 20 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 28, 2010 to August 6, 2012, which is the date of the decision of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) Details of property formation;

1) The Plaintiff’s monthly income as a teacher is about KRW 2.8 million, and the Defendant’s monthly income as a researcher is about KRW 4.6 million.

2) On August 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased KRW 72 million in the name of Cheongju-si ( Address 1 omitted) in the name of the Plaintiff around August 2003, the sum of the money collected by the Defendant and KRW 35.2 million as a donation from Nonparty 1’s mother at the time of marriage.

3) Around March 2005, Nonparty 1 purchased the Jung-gu, Daejeon ( Address 2 omitted). At this time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred KRW 110 million, including KRW 45 million in total, to Nonparty 1, the amount of KRW 750,000 in the lease deposit for the said ○ apartment.

[Ground of recognition] The Gap evidence Nos. 18, 23, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 12 (including each number), the investigation report on the preparation of family investigator, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Property to be divided and its value;

1. Property to be divided: Each property indicated in the detailed statement of the attached property to be divided; and

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

○ Plaintiff’s net property: 61,721,327 won

○ Defendant’s net property: 227,432,206 won

○ Total Amount of net property of 289,153,533 won (=61,721,327 won +227,432,206 won)

C. Determination as to the parties’ assertion on the property subject to subdivision

The phrase "party's assertion and judgment" in the attached non-recognized property specification table shall be referred to.

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

1) Division ratio: Plaintiff 40%, Defendant 60%

[Reasons for Determination] The period of marriage, the degree of contribution of the plaintiff and the defendant to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division, the age and occupation of the plaintiff and the defendant, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case

2) The method of division of property: The active property in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant shall be determined by the ownership, and the part of the amount to be reverted to the plaintiff according to the ratio of division of property shall be paid in cash to the plaintiff.

3) Property division amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: 54,000,000 won

[Reasons for Calculation]

① The Plaintiff’s share according to the division ratio of property out of the total net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant: 115,61,413 won (=total net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 289,153,533 x the Plaintiff’s degree of contribution 40% and less than KRW 40; hereinafter the same shall apply)

② Amount calculated by deducting the Plaintiff’s net property from the above amount: 53,940,086 won (=15,661,413 won-61,721,327)

③ Property division amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: 54,000,000 won where the above amount was paid to the Plaintiff.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 54,00,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day this judgment became final to the day of full payment.

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

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

Considering the age, status of custody, economic situation and intention of the principal of the case, and all other circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the case, the Plaintiff’s exercise and rearing of parental authority over the principal of the case is deemed desirable for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of the case. Thus, the Plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case.

(b) Claim for child support;

1) When one parent bears all of the past child support before filing a claim for child support, the other party may bear the unforeseeable child support at once and may be in violation of the principle of good faith and equity. In such a case, it does not necessarily need to be provided for in the same standard as the child support after the request for performance is made. In such a case, whether and when one parent has recognized the obligation to support, whether and when the other parent has recognized the obligation to support, whether it is an ordinary cost required for fostering or a large amount of expenses required for fostering, and whether it is a special expense (treatment cost, etc.) for the other party's property condition or economic ability and burden, and the scope of sharing deemed appropriate in consideration of various circumstances (see Supreme Court en banc Order 92S21, May 13, 1994, etc.).

2) According to the records of this case, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff raised the principal 2 and the defendant raised the principal 1 from the end of September 2010 to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the past child support of the principal of this case from October 1, 2010 to the end of September. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the child support of the principal of this case from the original and the defendant's age, occupation and property status, the age and condition of the principal of this case, the defendant's financial burden anticipated when ordering the defendant to pay the lump sum payment of the past child support, and other circumstances known to the purport of the records and examination of this case from October 1, 201 to August 6, 2012, the date the judgment of this case was rendered to the plaintiff, and it is reasonable to pay the plaintiff KRW 12 million to the child support of the principal of this case from October 1, 201 to the end of each month from August 7, 2012 to the end of the majority.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the claim for consolation money is accepted on the ground of the above recognition, and the remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed on the ground of the reasons, and it is decided as above with regard to the claim for division of property, the claim for designation of person with parental authority and the custodian, and the claim for

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Na