In a case where Party A, a Korean national of the Republic of Korea, married Party B, who is a Vietnam national, and Party B, was married to Party B, and Party B and Party B’s mother, and Party B filed a suit and counterclaim for mutual divorce, etc., on the ground that Party B and Party B’s mother state were not to go to Vietnam, the case holding that Party A and Party B are both liable for failure of marriage and Party B’s claim for consolation money on the ground that the degree of the marriage is equal.

A, a Korean national of the Republic of Korea, married to B, who is a Vietnam national, and A, brought a lawsuit and counterclaim against B, such as mutual divorce, on the grounds that B, who was dissatisfied with each other on the grounds that B, who was the mother of B and B, did not well bring his/her family work and child care.

Although the conflict between Gap and Eul has been sufficiently predicted due to cultural differences and generation differences in that Gap and Eul were married internationally at the end of the short-term maturity and their ages are considerably different, there were insufficient efforts to understand and respect each other during their marriage life, and the conflict has been deepened. Thus, the responsibility for failure of marriage is both Gap and Eul, and both Gap and Eul were dismissed on the grounds that the degree of the conflict is equal.

Articles 806, 840 Subparag. 6, and 843 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Attorney Lee Jae-deok, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Kim Sung-ap et al., Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Principal 1 et al.

December 20, 2018

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall be divorced by the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

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

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) 103,00,000 won as division of property and the interest rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day of this judgment to the day of full payment.

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

5. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 600,000 won monthly to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for the child support of the principal of the case from March 10, 2017 to May 15, 2029, and 300,000 won monthly from the next day to December 11, 2031.

6. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) may visit the principal of the case before the principal of the case becomes adult as follows. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall actively cooperate with the above visitation, and shall not interfere with the visitation.

(a) Date: Second, each month, from 10:0 to 19:00 on Saturdays; and

(b) Place and method: The method by which the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) takes part in the principal of the case at the place that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) consulted with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and takes part in the principal of the case after making an interview at the place where the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) may be responsible;

C. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) may change the schedule, place, and method of the visitation right through prior consultation, and hold the visitation right by respecting the welfare of the principal of the case as much as possible.

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

8. Paragraph 5 can be provisionally executed.

The main lawsuit: Section 1 of the Disposition and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) pay 30,00,000 won as consolation money to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and 50,000 won as consolation money from the day following the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the day of this judgment and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The Plaintiff shall be designated as the person exercising parental authority and the person having custody over the principal of this case. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 as child support for the principal of this case from the day of the judgment of this case to May 16, 2029, and KRW 50,000 as per the end of each month until December 12, 2031.

Counterclaim: Decision Nos. 1 and 4 of this Decree and the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 30,000,000 won as consolation money and 15% interest per annum from March 10, 2017 to the day of full payment, and shall pay to the defendant 257,50,000 won as division of property and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of the final decision to the day of full payment, and shall pay 600,000 won for each principal of this case from March 10, 207 to the day of full payment.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on July 24, 2009, and have a minor case principal among them. The Defendant was Vietnam’s nationality, but acquired Korean nationality by naturalization on November 19, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff transferred total amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s friendship during marriage by sending KRW 10,000 to the Defendant’s friendship and sending KRW 10,000 to the Defendant’s expenses for new house construction.

C. The Plaintiff, as she was her, failed to raise her family members and her children, was unable to bring her family members and her children, was allowed to make an international telephone for long time to her family members in Vietnam, and the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the Defendant on the ground that she was unable to bring her family members and her mother country, and was changing her handphones. Meanwhile, the Defendant was dissatisfied with the Plaintiff on the ground that she did not go her mother country

D. From June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married to the Defendant’s friendship in Vietnam. The Plaintiff was unable to properly meal the Plaintiff, after having come to Vietnam, and the Defendant was living in the Plaintiff on July 16, 2016. The Plaintiff expressed the Plaintiff’s objection to the said food group, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant were punished by physical body fighting. The Plaintiff abused the Defendant during the said process, and accordingly, filed a request for a formal trial of KRW 500,000 with the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch Branch, Busan District Court, 2016Ma11877, but was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 was subsequently withdrawn after the Plaintiff’s appeal.

E. On July 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) the police called up upon the report of the Defendant-friendly relationship after the husband’s fighting; (b) requested separation from the Plaintiff; (c) went back to the principal of the case; and (d) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were living separately from around that time.

F. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a word that recommends the Defendant to return to the house with the instant principal immediately after the Defendant’s house. However, from May 2017 to June 2017, the Defendant did not return to the house. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a Kakakao Stockholm message with the content that criticizes the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s family members, such as Kakao mar message, i.e., i., e., Kakao Kakao mar, i., i., i., i.e., i., i., i., ii., i., ii., i.e., i., i., i., i., ii.e., i., i.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 8 through 10 (each number includes numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), family affairs investigator's report, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

A. A principal lawsuit and counterclaim divorce claim: Each of the grounds under Article 840 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act exists.

(b) Claim for consolation money and counterclaim: None of each ground;

【Reasons for Determination】

(1) Recognition of the failure of marriage: All circumstances, including the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant want to divorce in addition to the above recognition, are separate from July 17, 2016, and the fact that it seems difficult to continue the marriage life in the future as reliance on each other is lost.

(2) The main responsibility for the failure of a marriage is both parties, and the degree of the failure is equal:

It is difficult to conclude that the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has been broken down due to the reason attributable to the Defendant. However, even though the Plaintiff committed assault against the Defendant on July 16, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have maintained a relatively smooth marital relationship, such as visiting the Defendant’s friendship in Vietnam immediately before the said assault was committed, taking into account the background and degree of damage, and the attitude of the parties after the occurrence of the above assault, it is difficult to conclude that the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has been broken down. Moreover, it appears that sending out a message to criticize the Defendant and the Defendant’s family members appears to have been broken down after the marriage dissolution of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Plaintiff abused the Defendant or abused the Defendant.

Rather, despite the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married internationally at the end of the short-term marriage and the age difference considerably, conflicts due to cultural differences and generation differences have been sufficiently predicted, efforts to understand and respect each other during the marriage life were insufficient, and they seem to have deepened the conflict. Therefore, the responsibility for failure of marriage is against both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the degree of the conflict is equal.

3. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) Details about the formation and maintenance of property;

1) On June 5, 2008, the Plaintiff inherited the apartment complex in Busan Shipping Daegu ( Address omitted) through consultation and division due to the death of his father on June 5, 2008. The Plaintiff and the Defendant resided in the said apartment complex during the marriage period.

2) At the time of marriage, the Plaintiff retired from office while operating the mobile communications store. The Defendant was in charge of childcare and household affairs during marriage.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, each of the evidence set forth in Nos. 4 through 7, the family affairs investigator's report, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Property and value to be divided;

1) Property to be divided: To be recorded in the list of property to be divided in attached Form 1.

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

A) Plaintiff’s net property: 515,000,000 won

B) Defendant’s net property: 0 won

C) Total amount of net property of the plaintiff and the defendant: 515,000,000

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

1) Division ratio of property: Plaintiff 80%, Defendant 20%

[Judgment basis] The degree of contribution of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division above, and other factors such as the process and period of marital life, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s income, property, economic power, etc.

2) Methods of division of property: In consideration of the parties’ intention, the ownership, acquisition and maintenance of the property subject to division, and the circumstances indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the situation of use, it is determined that the Plaintiff pays to the Defendant the shortage of the amount to be reverted to the Defendant according to the above division ratio by devolving the property subject to division as it is in the current name.

3) Property division amount to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant: KRW 103,000,000

【Calculation Form】

Net property 515,00,000 】 Defendant’s share = 20% = 103,00,000 won

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant 103,00,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. Determination on the designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian, child support, and visitation right (ex officio)

(a) Designation of a person with parental authority or custodian;

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case such as the marital life and distress of the plaintiff and the defendant, the friendship with the principal of this case, the age of the principal of this case, the custody status of the parties, and the intention of the parties, it is reasonable to designate the defendant as a person with parental authority

(b) Child support;

1) Occurrence of obligation to pay child support

The plaintiff, as his father, is responsible for fostering the principal of this case together with the defendant, is obligated to pay the child support for the principal of this case to the defendant.

2) Amount of future childcare expenses to be paid by the Plaintiff

As requested by the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall pay 300,000 won per month per person of the principal of the case from March 10, 2017 to the day before the principal of the case reaches each adult age from March 10, 2017, after the delivery of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, as requested by the Defendant.

[Calculation Basis] The age and parenting status of the principal of the case, the age, occupation and income, property and livelihood of the plaintiff and the defendant, the intention of the parties, etc.

(c) Interview ex officio;

The Plaintiff, as a non-cushion-child, has the right to visitation with the instant principal, so long as it does not go against the welfare of the instant principal, the Plaintiff shall determine the date, time, place, etc. of visitation as stated in Paragraph 6 of the Disposition, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the instant case, such as the age, parenting

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the principal claim and counterclaim divorce claim are accepted for each reason, and the principal claim and counterclaim consolation money are dismissed for each reason. It is so decided as per Disposition as to division of property, designation of person with parental authority and custody, child support, visitation right.

[Attachment] List of Property to be Divided: Omitted

Judges Kim Jong-young (Presiding Judge)