Plaintiff (Law Firm Taeng, Attorneys Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Song-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Principal 1 et al.

April 11, 2013

Daejeon Family Court Decision 2012Dhap733 Decided August 6, 2012

1. The judgment of the first instance on division of property and child support shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 60,550,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(1) 30,000,000 won shall be paid for the past child support of the principal of the case;

(2) From May 10, 2013 to the date when the principal of the case becomes adult with the future child support of the principal of the case, KRW 1,600,00 per month and KRW 800,000 per month from the next day to the date when the principal of the case becomes adult shall be paid on the last day of each month.

2. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. Purport of claim

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

B. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(1) 50 million won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a complaint to the day of complete payment.

(2) Property division amounting to 21,381,078 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the final judgment of the first instance court to the day of full payment.

sub-payment.

C. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and care for the principal of the case.

D. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 per person of the principal of the instant case from June 1, 2012 to the day before the principal of the instant case reaches each adult age at the end of each month, with the child support of KRW 40,00,000 per person of the instant case from June 1, 2012.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay below is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won as consolation money, and 20% interest per annum from October 28, 2010 to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 167,381,078 won as division of property, and 5% interest per annum from the day after this judgment became final to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 28,00,000 won as child support of the principal of this case in the past, and from June 1, 2012 to the day when the principal of this case reaches each adult age, one million won per head of the principal of this case shall be paid at the end of each month.

B. Defendant

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

(a) cite the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance;

This part of the court's reasoning is as follows, except for adding the following judgments, since it is stated in the part corresponding to the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

B. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the defendant's abandonment of bad faith such as not paying living expenses to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's lineal ascendant was unfairly treated, the defendant's lineal ascendant was unfairly treated against the plaintiff constitutes grounds for divorce, and such circumstances should also be considered in determining the amount of consolation money.

The written evidence Nos. 4-2, 38, 39, 40-1, and 41 are insufficient to acknowledge the facts of malicious abandonment alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant's improper treatment against the plaintiff's lineal ascendant, or unfair treatment against the plaintiff by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) Details of property formation;

(1) The Plaintiff’s monthly income as a teacher is about KRW 2.8 million, and the Defendant’s monthly income as a researcher is about KRW 4.6 million.

(2) On August 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased KRW 72 million in the name of Cheongju-si ( Address 1 omitted) in the name of the Plaintiff around August 2003, the sum of the money collected by the Defendant and KRW 35.2 million and the money collected by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which was donated by Nonparty 1’s mother at the time of marriage.

(3) On March 2005, Nonparty 1 purchased the Jung-gu, Daejeon ( Address 2 omitted). At this time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred KRW 110 million to Nonparty 1 the sum of the funds owned in KRW 7500,000,000,000,000, out of the deposit money for the lease of the said ○ apartment.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap 18, 23, 24, Eul 12 (including each number for those with a serial number), the investigation report of the family affairs investigator of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Property to be divided and its value;

(1) Property subject to division: To be recorded in the list of property subject to division of property in attached Form 1;

(2) The value of the property to be divided;

○ Plaintiff’s net property: 54,721,327 won

○ Defendant’s net property: 233,453,784 won

○ Total Amount of net property of the plaintiff and the defendant: 288,175,11 won (=54,721,327 won +23,453,784 won)

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

In the attached Table 2, the “parties’ assertion and judgment” column shall be the same as the “Party’s assertion and judgment” column.

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

(1) Division ratio: Plaintiff 40%, Defendant 60%

[Reasons for Determination] The period of marriage, the degree of contribution of the plaintiff and the defendant to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division, the age and occupation of the plaintiff and the defendant, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case

(2) The method of division of property: The active property in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant shall be determined by the ownership, and the part of the amount to be reverted to the plaintiff according to the ratio of division of property shall be paid in cash to the plaintiff.

(3) Property division amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: 60,550,000 won

[Reasons for Calculation]

① The Plaintiff’s share according to the division ratio of property out of the total net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant: 115,270,044 won (=total net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 288,175,111 x Plaintiff’s degree of contribution 40% and less than KRW 40; hereinafter the same shall apply)

② Amount calculated by deducting the Plaintiff’s net property from the above amount: 60,548,717 won (=15,270,044-54,721,327 won)

③ Division money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: KRW 60,550,000,000,000 for a little amount of money

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60,550,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day after this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Determination on designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian and claim for child support

(a) A request for designation of a person with parental authority or custodian;

Considering the age, status of custody, economic situation and intention of the principal of the case, and all other circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the case, the Plaintiff’s exercise and rearing of parental authority over the principal of the case is deemed desirable for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of the case. Thus, the Plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case.

(b) Claim for child support;

(1) When one parent bears all of the past child support before filing a claim for child support, the other party may bear the unforeseeable child support at once and may be in violation of the principle of good faith and equity. In such a case, it does not necessarily need to be provided for in the same standard as the child support after the request for performance is made. In such a case, the situation where one parent raises a child and the amount of expenses incurred therein, whether or not one parent has recognized the obligation to support, whether or not the other party has been aware of the obligation to support, whether or not it is an ordinary cost for rearing or a large amount of expenses spent in rearing, and the scope of sharing deemed appropriate in consideration of various circumstances such as the property situation of the parties or the equity of economic ability and burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 92S21, May 13, 1994).

(2) According to the records of this case, the Plaintiff’s principal 2, and the Defendant’s custody of the principal of this case from the end of September 2010 to the Plaintiff’s custody of all the principal of this case. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the past support of the principal of this case from October 1, 2010 to the end of September. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the age, occupation and property status of the Plaintiff, the age and state of the principal of this case, the anticipated economic burden when ordering the Defendant to pay a lump-sum payment of the past child support, and other circumstances known to the Defendant in the purport of the records and examination of this case from October 1, 201 to May 9, 2013, which is the date the judgment of this case was rendered from October 1, 201 to May 19, 200 won as the child support of the principal of this case from May 10, 2013 to the end of this case’s age.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified, and the claim for consolation money is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is reasonable to determine as above with respect to the claim for division of property, the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a child support, and the claim for child support. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance on division of property and child support is unfair in conclusion, it is reasonable to accept part of the plaintiff's appeal, and the judgment of the court of first instance on this part is modified as above. The judgment of the court of first instance on divorce, consolation money, the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a child support is just,

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)