Plaintiff (Attorney Job Offer, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Principal of the case

February 27, 2009

Daegu District Court Family Branch Decision 2006Ddan19988, 2006ddan22854 (Counterclaim) decided March 27, 2008

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

A. Main suit: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter "the defendant") are divorced. The defendant shall pay 30 million won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum to the plaintiff at the rate of 30% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the main suit to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and the guardian for the principal of the case. The defendant shall pay 20 million won per month to the plaintiff as child support for the principal of the case by February 22, 2020 from the day after the delivery of the copy of the main statement as child support for the principal of the case.

B. Counterclaim: The defendant and the plaintiff shall be divorced by a counterclaim. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 40 million won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall be designated as a person with parental authority and the guardian for the principal of the case. The plaintiff shall pay 400,000 won every month from the day following the delivery of a copy of the correction of the claim and the cause of the counterclaim to the defendant as child support for the principal of the case.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the counterclaim claim, the designation of the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority of the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the part of the claim for child support are modified as stated in the claim of the counterclaim.

1. Scope of judgment of party members;

With respect to the scope of a party member's trial, the plaintiff filed a claim for divorce, consolation money, designation of a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority and a person with custody, child support as a counterclaim, and the defendant filed a claim for divorce, consolation money, designation of a person with parental authority and a person with custody, child support, and child support against the plaintiff as a counterclaim, each of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit's divorce, divorce of the principal lawsuit, designation of a person with parental authority and a person with custody, a claim for a defendant's counterclaim, and the judgment of the first instance court where the plaintiff's claim for a counterclaim was dismissed, it is evident that the defendant appealed only against the counterclaim, consolation money, the principal lawsuit and the

Therefore, it is necessary to judge only the counterclaim consolation money, the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, the designation of a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority, and the claim for child support.

2. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no other dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 6, Eul evidence 3, 4, 7, 8, Gap evidence 11 through 16, Gap evidence 17, 18, and 19-1, 2, Gap evidence 20-1, 3, Gap evidence 27, 28, Gap evidence 29, 30-1, Gap evidence 31-1, Gap evidence 33-4, Eul evidence 35, 36, 37-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, 5, 8, 9, 10-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 2-1-1, evidence 7.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on April 20, 1995, and they have the principal of the case as their own consciousness.

B. The Defendant, due to internal and passive nature, was sexually and passive, led to violence to poor actors during the first-year course of high school, and was subject to violence. The Defendant graduated from high school due to its symptoms, and caused uneasy disorder symptoms while living at home. From around 1989, the Defendant was exempted from military service on January 25, 1990.

C. The Plaintiff, at the Daegu Mental Hospital, became an assistant nurse, became aware of the Defendant who was receiving treatment due to the symptoms of uneasiness, and was married with the Defendant after the restriction on contact with the Defendant around 194.

D. After marriage, the Plaintiff worked for the office accounting, assistant nurse, and cosmetics shop employees from around 1995 to around 1996, the Defendant worked for a computer sales agency and computer program production company for that period, but did not receive benefits from each other. From around 1997 to around 2000, the Defendant worked for a computer program production company, etc., and had been working for a computer program production company, etc., and had been working for a computer program production company, etc., and had been engaged in a new sales street store with the Plaintiff, but had a substantial economic difficulty.

E. After that, around February 200, when the Defendant did not have any particular occupation, a large amount of expenditure due to the birth of the principal of this case, and the Plaintiff operated a cyber shopping mall for the sale of children and sold clothes at the street store with his students in order to raise the living expenses, but did not obtain any specific income. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to increase their respective obligations by using credit cards under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant or receiving loans.

F. In addition, the Plaintiff received money from her natives as well as from time to time, and around 2003 at the wind of running the household, the Plaintiff became a person with bad credit standing due to the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 27 million, the Defendant’s debt of KRW 48 million, and became a person with bad credit standing for 2-3 months from the Plaintiff’s natives. In addition, the Defendant used the “○○○○”, which was a person with bad credit standing in the name of Nonparty 1’s mothers from July 2003 to November 2004, but did not obtain any particular income.

G. The plaintiff and the defendant living with the help of their relatives but there is no possibility of improvement in the situation, and the plaintiff thought that the defendant was able to bear a large amount of debt, while the defendant argued that it was due to the plaintiff's unreasonable help.

H. Around December 23, 2005, the defendant received a letter from the non-party 2, 3, 1, and 4, who is the plaintiff's birth, that the non-party 2 suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 35 million from the defendant's credit card using the defendant's credit card, and he received a letter of apology that the defendant caused the defendant to pay a debt of KRW 110 million including overdue interest, and issued a letter of peremptory notice to the non-party 2, etc. on April 8, 2006 that he paid the money in accordance with the above letter.

I. The plaintiff and the defendant proved that around April 17, 2006, the plaintiff and the defendant proved to be able to separate from the principal of the case when the defendant had directors in Kimcheon with the principal of the case, and the principal of the case currently raises the defendant.

(j) On the other hand, the Defendant received hospital treatment from January 25, 2006 to June 16, 2007 from the Daegu Medical Center through multiple times as an air condition disorder.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim damages claim

In case where the reason attributable to the dissolution of marriage is against both spouses and it is deemed that the degree of responsibility of both parties is equal to that of one party to the extent that it is difficult for both parties to be more responsible when compared to that degree, all parties cannot claim consolation money (see Supreme Court Decision 93Meu1273, 1280 delivered on April 26, 1994).

Although the plaintiff asserts that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant should be paid 40 million won as consolation money to the defendant because the plaintiff's unilateral responsibility led to the failure of the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that Eul should pay 1-6, Eul's evidence No. 2, Eul's evidence No. 3-1, 2, Eul's evidence No. 4 through 9, Eul's evidence No. 10-1, 2, Eul's evidence No. 11 through 16, Eul's evidence No. 17-1, 2, Eul's evidence No. 19, Eul's evidence No. 20, 23, 24, 28, Eul's evidence No. 29-1, 29-2, 35, Eul's evidence No. 36-1, 2-2, 37, 39-1, 34, 39-1, 4, and 30-4, each of the above evidence of the defendant's financial transaction information.

Rather, according to the above facts, the plaintiff did not take into account the size of the household, and caused the defendant to bear a large amount of debts to the extent that it is difficult to cope with the defendant by using credit card, and caused the defendant to cumulative personal and complaints against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's living together due to an ambiguous monetary relationship with his/her son. Since the defendant was unable to have his/her her son from around 2000, due to the increase in living expenses due to the birth of the principal of this case, he/she is bound to increase the amount of his/her son's living expenses as a result of his/her son's failure to perform his/her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's her son

4. Determination on the claim for designation of the principal lawsuit and counterclaim person with parental authority and custodian and the claim for child support

A. Part of a claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 32-1 through 3, Eul evidence 33-1, Eul evidence 34, Eul evidence 35, 36, 37, Eul evidence 40, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 27, Eul evidence 29-1 through 30, Eul evidence 31-1 through 4, Eul evidence 33-1 through 4, Eul evidence 49, Eul evidence 50-1 through 5, Eul evidence 52-1, 2, Eul evidence 53, Eul evidence 40, Eul evidence 53, Eul evidence 40, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 53, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 27, Eul evidence 27, Eul evidence 29-1 through 33, Eul evidence 30, Eul evidence 1 and 3, Eul evidence 1, 1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole court's oral arguments and inquiry of the death of the defendant.

(A) economic capacity;

① From October 2004 to October 2004, the Plaintiff, without any particular property, worked as an employee of the gas station, a part-time employee of the gas station, a restaurant, etc., who was punished for living expenses. After the instant case’s principal, the Defendant was working as an employee at the restaurant in Seoul, which is operated by the well-being, as an employee.

② The Defendant, as a holder of a certificate of information processing technician, lives with the proceeds from the development and sale of software without any particular property. At present, the Defendant currently resides in the house of Nonparty 5 (year 71) whose father was his father, followed his father, and has a plan to operate an orchard on the farmland of 6,420 square meters in total, including the farmland of 6,420 square meters in the farmland of Kimcheon-si.

(b)Health conditions;

① On October 17, 2007, the Plaintiff did not have any specific health conditions except for the self-explosive fluence of the womb as of 17th, 2007, and there was a hives symptoms of an hives. However, on November 23, 2007, the hives hives value of the hives was found within the normal range.

② The Defendant did not receive mental treatment from the marriage to the date of 2005, and the Defendant’s opinion on December 11, 2006, which was issued from around January 25, 2006 through several times in the Daegu Medical Center, stated that “it is deemed that the present state would not interfere with the social life.”

(C) A plan for fostering the original and the Defendant;

The plaintiff has a plan to rear the principal of this case while operating Lestop with his birth, and the defendant is a plan to raise the principal of this case with the income generated by living in the house owned by his father and developing the software program or the father's farming day.

(D) The intention of the principal of the case

The principal of the case appears on the third mediation date of the court of first instance and expressed his opinion to the effect that “if the principal of the case is the same as the plaintiff, the defendant would live in the same manner as the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff and the defendant have to live far away, he will live in the same way as the defendant now, and would be good if the plaintiff would live in the same way as the plaintiff twice a month.”

(2) Determination

Parental authority, including fostering of children, is parents' rights and duty, which directly affects the welfare of minor children and thus, in determining who is a minor child and a custodian in case of parents' divorce, the parental authority should be determined in a way that is most helpful and appropriate for the growth and welfare of minor children, by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the sex and age of minor children, parents' patriotism and intent to rear them, as well as the economic ability necessary for fostering, the degree of friendship between the father or mother and minor children, and the opinion of minor children (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Meu397, May 8, 2008).

The following facts revealed in the first instance court and the party hearing. ① In this case, considering the following circumstances, ① the plaintiff and the defendant's difficulty in fostering the principal of the case, i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant's intention of fostering the principal of the case, health status, friendly density with the principal of the case, and the intention of the principal of the case, etc., neither one of the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be deemed to be any more favorable, nor there is no circumstance that may obstruct the fostering of the principal of the case, and thus, the age and gender of the principal of the case should be first considered. Thus, the mother's fostering of the principal of the case would be helpful for the sound growth and welfare of the principal of the case, even if the defendant is designated as the person with parental authority and the rearing of the principal of the case, and even if it is designated as the person with parental authority and the rearing of the principal of the case, it is more likely that the defendant would have been 10,000 children or more of the principal of the case from 10 days to 20,00.

B. Part of claim for child support

(1) As long as the Plaintiff was designated as a custodian for the principal of this case, the Defendant, his father, is obligated to share the child support for the principal of this case. Considering all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the age and educational status of the principal of this case, health status, age, occupation and property status, it is reasonable to pay KRW 200,000 per month to the principal of this case as of the last day of each month.

(2) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 200,000 won each month to the plaintiff on the last day of February, 2020, which is the day immediately preceding the day when the principal of this case reaches the majority, which is anticipated to be able to actually rear the principal of this case as child support for the principal of this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance on the counterclaim consolation money, the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, the designation of a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority over a child support, is justifiable, and all the defendant's appeal is dismissed as

Judges Choi Choi-sik (Presiding Judge)