2. The plaintiff's claim for consolation money is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 36,500,000 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.

4. To designate the defendant as a person with parental authority and care of the principal of the case.

5. From July 17, 2013 to December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 600,000 per month to the Defendant for the child support of the principal of the case, KRW 800,00 per month from the next day to December 12, 2021, KRW 1,000 per month from the next day to December 12, 2024, KRW 1,000 per month, and KRW 1,20,000 per month from the next day to December 12, 2024, and KRW 1,200 per month from the next day to December 12, 2027 to the last day of each month.

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

7.Paragraph 5 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day after this service to the day of full payment.

Property division of the Plaintiff KRW 51,00,000, and the Plaintiff shall be fully repaid from the time the judgment of this case was rendered.

Until the day, 20% interest per annum shall be paid. The plaintiff shall be a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of this case.

B. The Defendant shall designate the Plaintiff as the child support for the principal of this case from January 2012 to December 13, 2028.

500,000 won shall be paid on the first day of each month.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant reported their marriage on February 11, 2008, and between them, the principal of the case is a child.

(2) From the beginning of marriage, the Defendant frequently sent the Plaintiff’s family in the vicinity of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s home. Accordingly, the Plaintiff began to have a complaint against the Defendant. (3) On June 28, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant conflicted with each other as an Internet telephone issue. During that process, the Plaintiff assaulted the Defendant, thereby suffering from the injury of the Defendant’s right cage cage at approximately 4 weeks of treatment, the Defendant was living together with the Defendant in the absence of the Plaintiff’s home and living together with her family. The Plaintiff was married at the home, and the Plaintiff was living in the company dormitory located in Kimcheon-cheon around June 2010, and the Plaintiff was living separately with the Defendant, and the Defendant sent the Plaintiff 1 to 7th of the Plaintiff’s instant text message on the grounds that the Plaintiff appeared to have been able to contact with the Plaintiff on the following day. (4) At the same time, the Plaintiff’s 1 to 4th of the instant case’s daily life.

(5) During the above separate living period, the Plaintiff was requested by the Defendant to play with the principal of the case and to conduct vaccinations to the hospital, etc., but did not comply with the request.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2-1, 2, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Evidence No. 9-1, 28, Evidence No. 4, 5, investigation report by family affairs investigator, and purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are living separately for about four years from the date of closing the argument in this case, and that no particular progress has been made to recover the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant even though they were consulted with their husband and wife during the litigation in this case, and the Plaintiff consistently expressed his intention to divorce with the Defendant during the litigation in this case, the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant seems to be no longer to have reached a failure to recover the marital life, even if considering the circumstance where the Defendant actively wishes to harmonize with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s best efforts to recover and maintain the marital life is difficult. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to fulfill the duty of living between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which led to the failure of marriage, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce and the Defendant’s failure to cooperate with the Plaintiff during the period of their separation, which is likely to cause a conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s wife during which the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce was made on the premise that it would be difficult to resolve the conflict between the Plaintiff’s life and the Defendant’s fault.

2. Determination on the claim for division of property

A. The circumstances and current status of property formation (1) The Plaintiff retired from office on September 15, 2008, while serving in the automobile parts company, and received unemployment benefits. The Plaintiff was employed in the company located in Yongcheoncheon around May 2009. From around June 2010, the Defendant was in charge of domestic affairs and childcare in his marriage. (2) In addition, the Defendant was in charge of family affairs and childcare in his marriage until he gives birth to the principal of this case. (3) On December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased KRW 103 Dong 1402, 1400,000,000, and paid KRW 100,000,000 in the name of the Defendant around January 15, 2008, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 each of the above apartment buildings to the Plaintiff.

(b) Property to be divided and value (1) of the property to be divided: Value of the property to be divided under the name of the defendant, 103, 1402 (2) of the F building in the name of the defendant: seventy-three thousand won,00,000 won;

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 26, family affairs investigator's investigation report, and whole pleadings. (1) The defendant claims that the plaintiff's automobile should be included in the plaintiff's active property. Thus, according to Eul evidence Nos. 16, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff currently holds a NF bill equivalent to 12,00,000 won at the market price. However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 20, 21 and family affairs investigator's investigation report, it can be recognized that the above automobile was purchased with agreement money and insurance money paid by the plaintiff for a traffic accident while driving a car owned before the marriage, and according to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the above car is not included in the plaintiff's unique property. Thus, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Daegu Bank should also be included in the Plaintiff’s small property. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 15, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is acknowledged as bearing the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay KRW 7,00,000 to the Daegu Bank at the time of the closing of the instant argument. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff bears the obligation to pay KRW 7,00,00 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s ordinary family affairs or common property at the time of the formation of the Plaintiff’s ordinary family affairs and the Defendant’s common property. Rather, according to the purport of the report of investigation and the entire pleadings by the family affairs investigator, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff was liable for the said loan prior to the marriage with the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s

(d) Ratio and method of division of property (1) ;

Considering the aforementioned contributions made by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the process of acquiring, forming, and maintaining the property subject to division, the period of marriage and distress of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and all circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, occupation, income, livelihood, etc., the division ratio of property of the instant case is reasonable to determine 50% and 50% of the Defendant.

(2) The method of division of property

Comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the title and form of ownership of the property subject to division, the situation of use, and the convenience of division, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant would pay the above apartment, which is the property subject to division, to the plaintiff as division of property, to the amount of 36,50,500,000 won (73,00,000,000 x 00 x 5) equivalent to 50% of the property division ratio out of the value of the above apartment.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 36,50,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day after full payment is made.

3. Designation of a person with parental authority and child support;

A. Taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who was designated as a person with parental authority and the custodian, were married, distressed, age, occupation, property status, and the age of the principal of this case, and the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, took a passive attitude in fostering the principal of this case during the separate period of stay with the Defendant, etc., it is reasonable to designate the Defendant as a person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of this case for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of this case.

(b) Child support;

Considering the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s occupation and economic power as to the divorce of this case, and the attitude of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to share the child support as the father of the principal of this case. The child support of the principal of this case to be borne by the Plaintiff shall be KRW 600,000 per month until the day before the principal of this case enters a kindergarten until the day before he reaches five years of age, and KRW 800,00 per month until the day after the principal of this case reaches the age of 13 years of age, when the principal of this case reaches the age of 16,00,000, and KRW 1,000 per month until the day after the principal of this case graduated from a middle school until the day before he reaches the age of 16,00,000, and KRW 1,200,000 per month until the day after the principal of this case becomes an adult.

Therefore, on July 2013, 2013, the day following the day this judgment was pronounced to the defendant as the child support for the principal of this case.

17. From December 12, 2013, 600 to December 12, 201, 800 to December 12, 2021, and 00 to December 12, 2021, 1,000 to December 1, 200, and 1,000 to December 12, 2024, and 1,200 to December 12, 2027 from the next day to December 12, 2027.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case shall be accepted on the ground of its reason, and the claim for consolation money shall be dismissed on the ground of its reason. It is so decided as per Disposition with regard to division of property, designation of person with parental authority and custodian, and child support.