Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Sin Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 29, 2011

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The plaintiff's claim for consolation money is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 280,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

4. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 432,535,983 won with 432,535,983 won as division of property and 20% interest per annum from the day when the judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On May 6, 1992, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to teach with the Defendant. At the time, the Plaintiff operated the beauty room in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and was raising Nonparty 1, a child born between Jeonnam-gu, while working for the beauty room, and the Defendant was working as a police officer. On August 1992, the Plaintiff closed the beauty room and left Nonparty 1’s custody to Jeonnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, 1993, which was sold by the Defendant on March 11, 1993, and was living together with the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant reported the marriage on August 6, 1993, and got married on December 10, 194, and there was no child among them.

B. On March 196, 200, the Plaintiff started the beauty room at the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and operated it together with Nonparty 2, who is the birth, and Nonparty 2 was living together at the home of the Plaintiff and the Defendant for two years from that time. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were pregnant at the time of the opening of the Plaintiff’s beauty room, but was born at a five-month period from that time of pregnancy. The Plaintiff and the Defendant considered that the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 had frequent dispute over the beauty room while running the beauty room together with the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 was the cause of miscarriage. The Plaintiff operated the beauty room for two years, and discontinued it to a business depression.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work and have a right to work for a right to work.”

x) On November 1, 2007, the Defendant got out of vegetable garden and knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee. On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee the Plaintiff’s birth. However, the Plaintiff considered that the Plaintiff knee knee fe febling the Plaintiff’s birth, etc., and had a big dispute with the Defendant while fighting the body with the Defendant. On March 14, 2008, the Plaintiff was sent to an emergency room, and the Defendant was treated as an emergency room. On March 16, 2008, the Plaintiff returned to Nonparty 3, 2008.

(v) Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to divorce, and this Court confirmed the intention of divorce by agreement on July 29, 2008, but did not report divorce by agreement. On the other hand, the Plaintiff is in separate position from the Defendant to the present day.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 1, 2, Evidence Nos. 5 through 8, 11, Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Evidence Nos. 5, Evidence Nos. 5, Evidence Nos. 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings by Non-Party No. 2]

B. Determination

(i)the failure of marriage;

In full view of the above facts of recognition, in particular, that the period of separation between the plaintiff and the defendant has reached more than three years, and that both the plaintiff and the defendant agree to divorce itself, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has been no longer failed to recover.

Shebrupt Responsibilities

The Defendant did not make a serious effort to resolve conflicts with the Plaintiff and caused the failure of the marriage by resolving the conflict with the Plaintiff several times on the grounds of extreme dispute with the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff did not make efforts to resolve the conflict with the Defendant or recover the marital relationship and did not go home and thereby deepen the conflict with the Defendant. Rather, the Defendant did not make efforts to recover the conflict with the Defendant. In the course of the dispute, the Plaintiff’s error did not deny one of the main causes of the failure of the marriage, and the degree of its responsibility is at least equal to the Defendant.

【Finality

This constitutes a cause for judicial divorce under Article 840 Item 6 of the Civil Code, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is reasonable. However, the claim for consolation money premised on the defendant's principal responsibility for failure of marriage is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) Details of the formation of property;

From November 25, 197, 1990 to August 1992, the plaintiff operated a beauty room in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Do, from March 1996, which was after marriage, operated a beauty room in the night-dong in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, but discontinued two years due to business depression, and was in full charge of domestic affairs without any particular economic activity. The defendant received benefits from February 25, 197, which was transferred to the marriage, while serving as a police officer from February 25, 197, and received public officials pension of KRW 2,128,600 from July 206 to June 30, 2006.

(b) Property and value to be divided;

(i) Property to be divided: as stated in the Schedule of Attached Property Divided;

B. The value of the property to be divided

㈎ 원고의 순재산 : 12,871,534원

㈏ 피고의 순재산 : 827,552,546원

㈐ 원고와 피고의 순재산 합계 : 840,424,080원

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 4-1 and 2, Evidence No. 6 and 7, Evidence No. 4 and 7-2, each of the statements No. 4 and No. 7, reply to each order to submit financial transaction information, fact-finding results on the Government Employees Pension Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings]

C. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion and judgment on this issue

(1) Although the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, who is mainly responsible for the failure of marriage, cannot file a claim for division of property, it cannot be accepted as it is merely an assertion without any ground.

Belgium, the Defendant asserts that the apartment of the Sungnam-si party branch of the apartment is not subject to division of property with the unique property acquired by the Defendant prior to marriage with the Plaintiff. As the Defendant’s assertion, even if the above apartment is considered to have actively prevented the Plaintiff from having actively cooperateed in the maintenance of the unique property or has cooperated in the proliferation thereof, it may be subject to division of property. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been in exclusive charge of domestic affairs as the family principal and contributed directly and indirectly to the maintenance and improvement of the above apartment by family labor, while running a real marital life with the Defendant for not less than 15 years. Therefore, the above apartment is subject to division of property, and the Defendant’s assertion against this is not acceptable.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that the property division shall be subject to the division of property as provided by the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3228, Apr. 2, 2011; 2008Da3277, Apr. 2, 2011; 208Da328, Feb. 201; 2008Da328, Apr. 2, 201; 201Da327, Feb. 201, etc.).

As of August 25, 201, the Defendant asserts that, as of August 25, 2011, the shares held by the Defendant in the Samsung Securities account were 400 shares of the Plaintiff, 300 shares of the Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd., 20 shares of the Hyundai Co., Ltd., 300 shares of the Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd., 300 shares of the Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd., 42,300 shares of deposit, and deposit amount remains 151,502,30 won. The Defendant asserts that the assessment amount of the shares and deposit money of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. as of April 19, 201, 30 shares of the Hyundai Co., Ltd., 300 shares of the Samsung Co., Ltd., 300 shares of the Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd., 300 shares of the Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd., 1,363,66 shares of the Plaintiff at the time of the closing of the argument.

(v) The Plaintiff asserts that the monthly pension of KRW 2,128,600 that the Defendant received every month from the Public Official Pension Management Corporation should also be subject to division of property, but as long as the Defendant’s name cannot be determined, it cannot be immediately included in the subject of division of property, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted, but the amount and method of division of property should be considered in determining the amount and method of division of property (the Plaintiff does not claim the payment of the above pension every month

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

(1) Ratio of division of property

Comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the following: (a) the process of property formation recognized above; (b) the actual marital life of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is more than 15 years; (c) most property subject to property division is formed as the Defendant’s salary; (d) the Defendant earned a considerable amount of profit through investment in stocks after the commencement of the separation with the Plaintiff; (e) the significant value of the Defendant’s shares has fallen after the closing date of the argument in this case; and (e) the division of property following the divorce includes not less than the amount of common property liquidation but not less than the amount of the marital property liquidation; and (e) there is a need to consider the support factors against the Plaintiff, who have been left as the main family during most marital life; and (e) the division

Dodle Property Division Method

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is a need to simply and clearly clarify legal relations arising from divorce; (b) the form and holding of property subject to division; and (c) the intent of the parties, etc., the method of division of property is to vest the positive property under the name of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the negative property in the current title holder; and (c) thereby, it is reasonable

【Scope of Property Division

The Plaintiff’s share according to the division of property among the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s net property is KRW 294,148,428 (=80,424,080 + 35%) and the Plaintiff’s net property is KRW 12,871,534. As such, the Plaintiff’s shortage in the Plaintiff’s net property is KRW 281,276,894. Therefore, the division of property that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff is set at KRW 280,000,000, which lowers the above amount.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 280,000,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day after this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is accepted on the ground of the reason, and the claim for consolation money is dismissed on the ground of the reason, and the claim for division of property shall be determined as above.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Ho-young