2011Dhap 11481 (principal lawsuit) Divorce, consolation money, etc.

2011D. 15537 (Counterclaim) Divorce and consolation money

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

March 6, 2013

March 20, 2013

1. In accordance with the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are divorced.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) as consolation money of KRW 30,00,000, and the Plaintiff’s compensation amount of KRW 20,01.

10. Payment of 20% interest per annum from 18. to 10.0% interest per annum.

3. The defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)'s counterclaim divorce and consolation money claim are dismissed, respectively.

4. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the amount of KRW 90,00,000 as division of property and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A, while the remainder is assessed against Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

6. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The purport of the claim in the principal lawsuit: Disposition Nos. 1, 2, Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

c. 146,250,000 won as division of property and this decision has become final and conclusive against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff")

It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day after the day to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim claim: The defendant and the plaintiff are divorced by counterclaim. The plaintiff shall be consolation money to the defendant.

30,000,000 won and interest thereon from the day after the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

20% of the 20% interest shall be paid.

1. Determination as to the claim of divorce and consolation money against each principal lawsuit and counterclaim

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Marriages and children: Marriages and children on October 24, 2007, and no children are born under the chain of marriage. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant became aware of their marital life and failure, around 2005, and provided a teaching system, and around May 12, 2007.

B) A minor dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which began living together with the Defendant, was about June 2007, and the Defendant did not enter the computer room for one week on this ground. Even thereafter, the Defendant did not engage in any economic activity until 2010 after the Defendant left the company without any doubt with the Plaintiff on July 2007. In addition, the Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s parents, she’s parents, and she did not talk about job-seeking activities. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s income maintained a marital life with the Defendant.

D) Around 2010, the Plaintiff recommended the Defendant to start up a carpet, the Defendant completed the carpet process from March 2010, and acquired a certificate of qualification, and thereafter made a carpet at the coffee specialty.

Even if the Defendant received the benefits, it used it as the interest payment and the money for the borrowed money from the Plaintiff’s mother, and did not pay the Plaintiff’s living expenses.

E) Around December 2010, the Defendant promised to start up a Ka Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

F) The Plaintiff subsequently changed the Defendant. However, the Defendant, while playing a computer game in the week, was doing so at the computer room, and at the weekend, did not communicate with the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff, while leaving the stamp as a hobby life.

G) Around December 10, 2010, the Defendant was notified by the Plaintiff that he had become aware of the fact that he could not pay the amount of money for the future cancellation. Since the conflict between the two parties has deepened, the Defendant demanded a divorce, and on December 23, 2010, sent to the Defendant a letter stating that the Plaintiff would prepare for the divorce procedure and documents. Since then, the Defendant was residing in the computer room, the Plaintiff was able to live in the inner room, the meals were resolved by each party, and the marital relationship was not maintained.

H) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after confirming the intention of divorce to the Defendant around the end of November 201, and the Defendant received the instant complaint and notified the Defendant’s parents thereof, and became the head of the Defendant’s office on November 13, 201.

3) The period of separate occupation: The defendant's house was located from November 13, 201 to November 4): the plaintiff currently resides in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City 104 Dong 404 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), which is the previous residence, and the defendant left the apartment of this case and resides in the defendant's father's house around November 13, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 16, 18, 38, Eul evidence Nos. 10 through 13, investigation report by family affairs investigators, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination as to the principal lawsuit and the claim of consolation money

1) Divorce: there are reasons under Article 840(3) and (6) of the Civil Act.

[Grounds for Determination]

① Recognition of failure: Taking into account various circumstances, such as the above fact of recognition, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant want a divorce between themselves through the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not make any particular effort to recover the relationship even after their separation, and the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant seems to have deteriorated to the extent that they could not recover.

② In light of the above fact of recognition, in particular, the defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiff 30,00,000 won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from October 18, 2011 to the day of complete payment, to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of complete payment, to the day of complete payment, in consideration of various circumstances, such as: (a) the defendant has a duty to pay to the plaintiff 30,000 won as consolation money and 30% interest per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, by avoiding his responsibility in a way that does not communicate with the plaintiff, even though the defendant

[Ground of determination] The causes of and degree of responsibility for the dissolution of marriage, marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant, age, occupation, and economic power of the plaintiff and the defendant.

C. Determination on the counterclaim divorce and the claim of consolation money

1) The Defendant filed a counterclaim for a divorce). The Defendant, on July 2007, was dismissed from the office of recommendation by the company accompanying the Defendant around July 2007, and was engaged in job-seeking activities systematically thereafter. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the marriage relationship has reached the failure due to the Plaintiff’s liability, such as disregarding the Defendant’s efforts, insulting the Defendant, and wanting a divorce.

B) Determination: None of the reasons.

[Ground of determination] The written evidence Nos. 10 and 13 (including each number) of Eul is insufficient to admit the defendant's above assertion, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and as examined in the above facts, the main liability of the defendant for the counterclaim consolation money is the defendant. 2)

As long as the defendant's counterclaim claim for divorce is without merit, the defendant's counterclaim claim on the premise of divorce is without merit to examine further.

2. Determination on the claim for division of property at the principal lawsuit

A. At the time of marriage with the Plaintiff, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s mother and purchased the instant apartment in the name of the Defendant with approximately KRW 200,000,000 from the Defendant’s parent. The Plaintiff and the Defendant began married in the instant apartment.

2) From the time of marriage, the Plaintiff was working for Lone Star Co., Ltd. to the present date, while raising approximately KRW 3,00,000 per month. The Plaintiff’s income appropriated the Plaintiff’s apartment management expenses, public charges, Defendant’s insurance premiums and money, savings, and credit card bills.

3) The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff living expenses without engaging in any economic activity from the date of establishment of the company accompanying around 2007 to the date of 2010.

4) The Defendant completed the Lata curriculum from March 2010 to June 2010, and completed the curriculum from June 2011.

3. From around the point of view, even though he received approximately KRW 1,100,00 per month while making a part-time payment at the Aarsen coffee specialty, he did not pay the Defendant’s personal insurance premium, interest on the Plaintiff’s mother’s borrowing, and the Defendant’s paying the Defendant’s compensation.

(b) Property to be divided: The value of the Plaintiff’s net property to be divided: 8,515,652 won: the Defendant’s net property: 238,406,402 won: 246,922,054 won;

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 12, 34 through 37, 44 through 47, 44 through 47, and Eul evidence Nos. 10, 16 through 21 (including each number), and the result of this court's order to submit and reply each financial transaction information to the Korea Bank Receipt Service Center, the Korea National Bank Business Center, and the Director of the Korea Agricultural Federation IT Headquarters, the family affairs investigator's report and the whole purport of arguments.

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

In the attached Form 1 List of Property Divided and the Schedule of Property Unauthorizedd in Attached Form 1, see the Claim and Judgment of the Party.

D. Property division ratio and method 1): Plaintiff 40%, Defendant 60%

[Ground of determination] All the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division as above, the process and period of marital life, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, occupation, etc.

2) The method of division of property: The property in the name of the Plaintiff and each of the Defendant is determined to be owned by ownership, and the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff the shortage of the amount to be reverted to the Plaintiff according to the ratio of division of property.

3) Property division amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: KRW 90,000,000

[Calculation Form] (A) The Plaintiff’s share of net property according to the division ratio of property among the Plaintiff’s net property, the Defendant’s net property 246,92,054 x 40% x 98,768,821 won (the amount below)

B) Property division amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff from the amount of the above A to the amount of KRW 98,768,821 - KRW 8,515,652 = 90,253,169c)

B) The amount of the above subsection 90,000,000

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 90,000,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money against the principal lawsuit shall be accepted in its reasoning, and all counterclaims by the defendant shall be dismissed without merit, and the plaintiff's claim for division of property against the principal lawsuit shall be determined as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Jong-ok

Judge Coordination

Support for judges' organization