2014Dhap20103. Compensation for damages (Divorce)

2015Dhap20042 (Counterclaims) Divorce, etc.

(************ 2**********)

Busan

Attorney Lee Do-young

ThisB (***************************))

Busan

Law Firm Doz.

July 16, 2015

August 2015 8.20

1. The plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (the counterclaim plaintiff) are divorced by the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

2. All of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claims for consolation money, property damage, and restitution to the original state, and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim damages are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

In the principal suit: (a) of Paragraph (1) of this Article, the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall pay to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "original defendant") 50,00,000 consolation money with 65,354,109 won with compensation for property damage, and 150,000,000 won with compensation for property damage, and 150,000,000,000 won with compensation for property damage, and 20% per annum from the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case until the date of this judgment, until the date of this judgment, and 5% per annum from the next day until the date of complete payment.

Counterclaim: (1) of this case; (2) The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 30,00,000 won as consolation money with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of this judgment; and (3) 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money against each principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. Facts of recognition

1) Family relationship

The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 1, 2014, and have no child under the slurries.

2) Circumstances of the dissolution of marriage

A) On December 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant first met with the introduction of a marriage intermediary in the middle of marriage. At the time of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff operated * private teaching institutes *, and the Defendant was the intention to impose duties at the hospital located in Busan.

B) In the course of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s parent gave the Defendant’s parent KRW 200,000,000 at the expense of prejudice, and the Defendant’s parent returned KRW 50,000,000 among them to the Defendant’s parent as the salary expense.

C) On April 5, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) placed a marriage ceremony on a day after having been married to a new marriage; (b) had been living together at the home of the Defendant parent for about one month; and (c) had been divided into two parts; and (d) had been living together in an apartment that the Plaintiff’s parents prepared

D) On September 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) around the end of September, 2014, the Defendant got home immediately after drinking and went home with each other; (b) and (c) went home with each other.

E) On December 7, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued the dispute from 02:30 to 100 to 200, due to the Defendant’s late returning home, and the Defendant continued to hold a new wall. At the end of the dispute, the Defendant went back to 200 to 200, but she did not enter the house due to a change in the number of the head office.

F) On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff’s father reductionCC sent the Defendant’s clothes, books, etc., which were located in the Defendant’s office, to the hospital where the Defendant was working.

G) Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant have been distinguished from time to time since that time.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15, 23 (including each number for those with several numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) A claim for divorce between a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim: Each of the reasons under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act exists.

2) Claim for consolation money for each principal lawsuit and counterclaim: None of the grounds therefor.

[Grounds for Determination]

(1) Recognition of a marital failure: Various circumstances such as the plaintiff and the defendant want to make a marriage by means of the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim of this case, and they seem to have no possibility of restoring their trust and continuing their marital life.

(2) The liability for the failure of marriage is both parties.

The Plaintiff’s verbal abuse, assault, and destruction of household tools, the refusal of marital relations, abnormal behavior on the spot, non-payment of living expenses, excessive demand for economic support, concealment of debts, unjustifiable friendship of the Defendant mother, religious coercion, and coercion of pregnancy, etc. citing as grounds for divorce the Plaintiff’s unfair treatment, unilateral refusal of dialogue and refusal to live together, insulting speech of the Plaintiff parent, coercion of divorce, etc. As such, the Defendant is liable for marriage dissolution to each other.

However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the evidence No. 14-1 to No. 15-10, No. 17-1 to No. 18-5, No. 24-1, No. 24-2, No. 7, No. 8-2 through No. 6, and No. 25-1 through No. 25-6, as a whole, the responsibility for the failure of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant exists on both the plaintiff and the defendant, and the degree of responsibility between these parties seems to be equal.

○ The Plaintiff and the Defendant revealed that there are parts that are not consistent with each other in various aspects, such as the growth environment, character, means of living, and habits. Even so, the married couple should first understand and take into account each other in order to continue the matrimonial relationship. However, rather than trying to see the Defendant’s complaint for late home and home, the Defendant made a mistake in gathering the Plaintiff by using verbal language at the time of going to the Plaintiff at the time of going to the Plaintiff. Moreover, without making any effort to understand the other party’s wife’s wife, the Plaintiff did not change the password of Seodaemun-gu to prevent the Plaintiff from returning to the Plaintiff’s house, while arranging a matrimonial relationship with the Defendant, such as sending the Defendant’s personal effects to the workplace and demanding the return of wedding expenses.

On the other hand, the grounds for the dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant's assertion, except the above part, cannot be accepted as the grounds for the divorce in this case, since the evidence submitted to this court alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the allegation, or it is difficult to view it as the ground for the divorce in this case.

C. Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant are divorced by the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and all of the plaintiff's claims for consolation money and the defendant's counterclaim consolation money are without merit.

2. Determination on restitution of principal lawsuit and claim for property damages

A. Part of the claim for restitution

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, who is responsible for the failure of the marriage of this case, should return to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 as the restoration of the original state, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s parents paid KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant’s parents, and returned KRW 50,000 among them to the Defendant’s parents.

Unless there is a special reason to treat the same as non-Marriage of marriage in light of the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, such as where a short-term failure has occurred or the intention to continue marriage has no intention to continue marriage as a married community, the one party cannot seek damages equivalent to the expenses, such as marriage type, etc. paid by the spouse or the amount of money equivalent thereto, in addition to the claim against the spouse for division of property, or for the return of the expenses, such as marriage type, which have been incurred by the spouse, or for the recovery of the said expenses, etc. If an agreement was made under the legal system of the Republic of Korea adopting the principle of legal divorce and the report of marriage has been concluded and a marriage has been established under the law, the relationship, support, and cooperation as a marital community, and the resolution thereof has to be easily made in accordance with the divorce procedure prescribed in the Civil Act, and thus, it shall not be decided that the substance of the marriage is not able to be handled by the judgment of the Supreme Court.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff and the defendant met with the introduction of a marriage intermediary on April 5, 2014, and reported the marriage on May 1, 2014, and they were living together as a couple for about eight months from the date of marriage registration to December 7, 2014. Thus, if the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be deemed to have been resolved within a short-term period to the extent that it is difficult to view that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was a social marital community, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff did not move-in report or that the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant continued, solely on the grounds that the plaintiff did not move-in report was not made or that there was no special circumstance to deem that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant did not exist as a marital community and that it should be treated to the extent equivalent to that of the marriage.

If so, the pre-determined cost is established between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant continues to exist for a reasonable period, and thus, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's claim for the return of pre-determined cost is without merit.

B. Part of the claim for damages concerning expenses for marriage and marriage

In order to establish and maintain a matrimonial relationship with the Defendant, the Plaintiff spent KRW 65,354,109 in total, including the expenses for marriage type 32,089, 989, the expenses for purchasing mixed water, KRW 33,264, and KRW 120,00. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant liable for the failure of the marriage relationship of this case should pay the Plaintiff KRW 65,354, and KRW 109 in the amount of damages.

However, as seen earlier, there is no special circumstance that the Plaintiff and the Defendant continue to be married for a considerable period of time, and that the relationship should be dealt with in accordance with the failure to marry. Thus, even if the divorce was resolved later, the Plaintiff’s expenses for marriage and the expenses for marriage cannot be claimed as damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of the claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant's claim for divorce are accepted on the grounds of their reasoning, and all of the plaintiff's claims for consolation money, damages and restitution to their original state, and the defendant's counterclaim damages are dismissed on the grounds of each ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges - The chief judge - the associates

Judges Kim Jin-jin

Judges Park Jong-hee