[1] The case holding that the her husband's real estate donated to her husband is subject to division of property

[2] The case holding that the claim for reimbursement of excess child support was accepted

[1] The case holding that since the wife contributed to maintaining the property by engaging in household labor and helping the husband to work, it shall be deemed that the real estate donated to the husband is subject to division of property

[2] The case holding that if the wife took care of a child in a foreign country without the husband's assistance, the husband has a duty to pay the wife part of the past child support, thereby recognizing the claim for reimbursement of the past child support

[1] Articles 839-2 and 843 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 837 and 843 of the Civil Act

(Attorney Park Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Principal of the case

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

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the amount of KRW 100,000,000 as division of property and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the amount of KRW 100,000,000 with the past child support, 5% per annum from May 26, 2001 to July 25, 2001, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

4. The person who exercises parental authority and takes care of the principal of the case shall designate the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff.

5. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the amount of KRW 1,00,000 each month from July 25, 2001 to October 30, 2003 as the child support for the principal of the instant case, respectively, on the last day of each month.

6. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s remaining counterclaims are dismissed.

7. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person in total with the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

8. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

Main claim: Paragraph (1) shall apply.

Counterclaim: Disposition Nos. 1, 4 and Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) the amount of KRW 500,000,000 as division of property, the amount of KRW 200,000 as support fees, and the amount of KRW 250,000 as of May 22, 2001 from the day following the delivery of a copy of the claim for the counterclaim and the change of the cause of the claim, to the day of full payment. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 1,00,000 each month from March 1, 201 to October 30, 203 as child support for the principal of this case.

1. Determination on the principal lawsuit and each counterclaim

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-28, 29, 70, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 16-1 through 653, and the contents of the investigation report prepared by family investigation officers, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

(1) The plaintiff and the defendant completed the marriage report on September 14, 1979, and among them, have the principal of the case between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the two children.

(2) After the plaintiff's marriage, the plaintiff and the defendant considered the non-party 2 at the home of the non-party 2, who is the mother of the plaintiff's living. The defendant's reckless excessive consumption tendency that goes beyond the husband's salary level, the defendant's misunderstanding and criticism about the relation with the plaintiff's student guidance duty, and the defendant's misunderstanding and misunderstanding about the relation with the third party C, which was caused by the plaintiff's behavior since around 190, and the defendant's bullying telephone from the non-party 2's name and the litigation about the defendant's non-wheeled personality, etc. are frequently disputed in the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant.

(3) From 1994 to 1994, the plaintiff and the defendant entered a divorce talk, and on December 27, 1995, the non-party 2 made a letter to the plaintiff on December 27, 1995 that he would make it better with the defendant, and on December 28, 1995, the defendant made a statement to the defendant that he will do his best to the given day and will not discuss the divorce problems in the future, but the plaintiff and the defendant did not want to do so.

(4) After that, on February 17, 1996, the defendant left the Republic of Korea with his children without any doubt from the plaintiff, and filed a divorce lawsuit against the plaintiff on August 7, 1996. However, on June 12, 1998, the Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on the ground that he is a responsible spouse. On July 21, 1999, the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 1999 as the Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal.

(5)On the other hand, the defendant and the principal of the case returned to Korea on June 20, 199 and the non-party 1 on November 1999, respectively, and the defendant did not pay the plaintiff's living expenses while living together with his children in the United States, and the defendant borrowed money exceeding KRW 200 million from friendly families to use them as school expenses and living expenses for children.

(6) Upon the conclusion of the judgment of loss against the defendant, the defendant requested the plaintiff to divorce while residing in the family of the plaintiff, on December 17, 1999 by the old room that he would be protected from the plaintiff and his family members, while living in the family of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff of the plaintiff and the defendant of the plaintiff

(b) Markets:

According to the above facts, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was no longer reached to the extent that it can no longer be recovered due to reasons attributable to both parties, such as unauthorized departure of the defendant, suspension of payment of the plaintiff's living expenses, and deepening conflicts between the plaintiff and the defendant's family, and this constitutes a judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code. Thus, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaims are all justified.

2. Determination on the counterclaim for division of property

The following facts may be acknowledged based on each of the above evidence as follows: Gap evidence 7-1 through 6, Eul evidence 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 5-1 through 6, Eul evidence 7-1 through 3, Eul evidence 8-1 through 43, Eul evidence 9 through 11, and Eul evidence as a result of a request for market value appraisal by this court, and all of the arguments.

(1) After marriage, the Plaintiff and the Defendant laid away Nonparty 2 on the Plaintiff’s land D in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul and its ground. The Plaintiff was in office as a middle and high school teacher, and the Defendant was in office as a member of the Plaintiff’s middle and high school, who was engaged in domestic labor, and flicking at various event sites. The Defendant was in office as a member of Nonparty 2, who was engaged in domestic labor, and flicking at various event sites.

(2)On the other hand, on June 3, 1994, Nonparty 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the above D site, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on July 18, 1995 after newly building the fiveth floor, the second floor neighborhood living facilities and the above above ground buildings on the ground. At the time, Nonparty 2 was appropriated for the sale price of the land owned by the Plaintiff in Gyeonggi-do, the construction cost of KRW 100 million borrowed from the bank, and the above construction cost of the building rental deposit. At present, the market price of the above real estate in the Plaintiff’s name is the aggregate of KRW 1,287,50,790, and the Plaintiff bears the obligation to refund the rental deposit of KRW 275,000,000 and the obligation of collateral security for KRW 100,000 for E.

On the other hand, on October 15, 1995, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay an additional amount of KRW 500 million under the pretext of consolation money in case of selling, selling, or disposing of property with Nonparty 2, in cash, and in case of Nonparty 2’s request.

(b) Object of division of property;

According to the above facts, since the defendant contributed to the maintenance of the property while engaging in domestic labor and the non-party 2's work, which is the plaintiff's mother's life, the above real estate in the name of the plaintiff equivalent to the current market price of KRW 1,287,50,790 is the plaintiff's active property, and the above real estate is the plaintiff's joint property, the deposit repayment obligation equivalent to KRW 275,000,000 in the name of the plaintiff, and the right to collateral security obligation of KRW 100,000 in the name of the plaintiff is also a small property that has been borne to maintain the marital life, all of them

C. Method and degree of division of property

(1)In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the type of the property to be divided, its current status of use, current ownership, and the process of acquisition, as seen above, the property will vest in the plaintiff according to the current status of possession, and as a result, if the property falls short of the amount to be ultimately reverted to the defendant due to the division of the property in this case, it would be reasonable for the plaintiff to settle

(2)In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of this case, including the health team, the particulars and conditions of the acquisition of active property subject to division, the level of cooperation between the plaintiff and the defendant on the formation and maintenance thereof, the age of the plaintiff and the defendant, the process of marital life, the period of continuous failure, the situation where the plaintiff and the defendant's livelihood after divorce, and the situation where the non-party 2 contributed significantly to the development of the above real property, and the disposal of the above property, the amount ultimately to be reverted to the plaintiff by division of property of this case shall be the amount exceeding 375,000,000 won (275,000,0000 + 100,000,000,0000 won for active property subject to division as above, and the amount exceeding 912,50,790,1009,1000 won for each of the net property assets amount exceeding 1,287,500,000 won.

(3) If so, in this case where there is no net assets value currently held by the defendant, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant 100,000,000 won as the settlement amount of the division of property of this case and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Code from the day following the day when the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day after the completion

3. Determination on a claim for child support in the past of a counterclaim

Since the defendant raises Nonparty 1 and the principal of the case in the United States, the plaintiff, the father of Nonparty 1 and the principal of the case, is obligated to pay part of the child support in the past to the defendant.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of the past child support to be borne by the Plaintiff, the part of the Plaintiff’s child support out of the past child support amount is determined as KRW 100,000,000, considering all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s property and income level, Nonparty 1 and the principal of the case, the custody status of Nonparty 1 and the principal of the case, and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s study in the United States.

Therefore, the plaintiff has a duty to pay to the defendant 10 million won for the child support in the past, and to pay 5% per annum from May 26, 2001 to July 25, 2001, which is clear in the record that the application for the change of the claim and the cause of the claim was served on the plaintiff as of May 20, 201 to the plaintiff, and 25% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the next day to the full payment date under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Determination as to a claim for designation of a person exercising parental authority and a custodian and a child support

On the other hand, considering all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the original and the defendant's age, occupation, property level, process of marital life and distress situation, the age of the principal of this case, the degree of difficulties to the principal of this case and the intention of fostering the principal of this case, which are acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, it is more appropriate to designate the defendant as the exerciser and the guardian of parental authority over the principal of this case for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of this case.

As such, as long as the defendant was designated as the person exercising parental authority over the principal of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to share the child support for the principal of this case as the father of the principal of this case. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the age and educational status of the principal of this case, and the age and property status of the plaintiff and the defendant, it is reasonable to determine that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the child support for the principal of this case as the child support for the principal of this case from July 25, 2001 to October 30, 2009, which the principal of this case seeks from July 25, 2001 to the age of majority.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim divorce claim are accepted on the grounds of their reasoning, and the above provisions shall be prescribed as to the counterclaim property division claim, previous child support claim, designation of the person exercising the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to claim the

Judges Hwang Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)