2010dhap000 (Main Money, etc.)

2010dhap000 (Counterclaim) Property division, etc. due to de facto marriage resolution

○○ (a man who has been 56 years old)

OOOOO in Yangsan City - 0

Attorney Yoon Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

○ ○ (60-year females)

Busan ○○○○○○○○○ - ○○○○ apartment ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Law Firm Seo-Gyeong, Attorney Hwang Tae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

April 19, 2012

July 19, 2012

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Main elements;

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”)

30,000,000 Won with charge to the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

20,000,000 won and 200 won and 200

The interest rate of 5% per annum shall be paid from the final judgment to the date of full payment, and the attached real estate 1 shall be paid.

Property division with respect to the real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") entered in the list, the fixed date of this judgment

due to the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of this paragraph.

2. Counterclaim;

Plaintiff, as consolation money, KRW 100,000, KRW 000, division of property, KRW 350,000, and each of them, to the Defendant

shall be calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the service of the copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

L. D. Payment of money.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to come to and depart from each other on or around January 2007, and maintained a de facto marriage relationship while living together with the Defendant’s apartment from May 2007. At the time, the Defendant was operating a singing room, which was committed by living together with the Plaintiff, and focused on the Plaintiff’s domestic affairs and the Plaintiff’s business assistance. The Plaintiff is the representative director of ○○ ○○ Company, a specialized company for the public forum recycling.

B. On January 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,50,000 to the Defendant as living expenses. On February 2, 2007, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,500,000 per month as living expenses from February 2, 2007. From May 2007, the Plaintiff began living with the Defendant, instead of living in an apartment house owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “OOO-dong apartment of Busan ○○○○○○○○-dong, Busan ○○○○○○○○, O-dong, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, and hereinafter “O-dong”). At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,500,00 per month and KRW 50,000 per month as a loan, which the Defendant bears as security, and paid KRW 4,000 per month as well as at the Defendant’s living expenses.

C. Around March 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant moved into the instant apartment purchased by the Plaintiff. Around March 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared a total amount of KRW 96,00,00,000, excluding the secured loan of KRW 130,000, out of the purchase price of the said apartment.

D. The Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 106,024,423 prior to living with the Plaintiff ( KRW 70,00,000,000, KRW 144,423, KRW 423, KRW 5,90, KRW 00, KRW 14,090, KRW 090, KRW 14,000, KRW 1,80, and KRW 800, KRW 120,000, KRW 120,000, KRW 200, and KRW 120,000, KRW 200, and KRW 100,000, and KRW 120,000, in the lease of ○○dong apartment on May 3, 2008.

E. From the date of moving into the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant used the apartment of this case, and did not have sexual intercourse with each other, and they started dispute with respect to the payment of living expenses.

F. On March 9, 2010, the Defendant sold ○dong apartment at KRW 175,00,000, and returned the deposit for lease of ○dong apartment at KRW 120,00,000 out of the purchase price, and repaid the remainder of KRW 55,00,00, and the loan obligation incurred after May 2008.

G. On April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff donated the instant apartment to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant in the form of sale. The secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the said apartment is also acquired by the Defendant as exempted from liability, but the loan interest is still borne by the Plaintiff.

H. The Plaintiff and the Defendant resolved de facto marriage with respect to the payment of living expenses. On September 25, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed consolation money, which led to their body fighting with each other. On that day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were living in the officetel located in Busan ○○○-dong Office, while living in the officetel located in Busan ○○○-dong. On October 15, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed consolation money again at the Plaintiff’s instant officetel on October 15, 2010, but at the same time, they destroyed the climate and reported it to the police.

I. The Plaintiff and the Defendant currently filed the main lawsuit and counterclaim in this case, and thus, liquidated de facto marriage relations.

(j) The Defendant is registered as ○○ department store MVG (Most Valable Gest, Most customer).

(k) The Defendant used the name of "director of ○○○○○○○ Company during the de facto marriage with the Plaintiff during the period of de facto marriage, and, at any time, assisted the Plaintiff’s business activities by attending a golf meeting with those related to the Plaintiff’s business partners.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 14, 16 (including each number, if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 12, 13, and 14, Gap evidence Nos. 17 and 28, the response of the ○○ Bank to order the financial transaction information of this court, the result of the inquiry of the fact to the chief of the ○○○○ police station of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of consolation money for each principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. The resolution of de facto marriage relationship: The de facto marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant seems to have been terminated around September 25, 2010, after the plaintiff filed a claim for consolation money with the defendant.

B. The plaintiff asserts that a de facto marital relationship has disappeared due to the plaintiff's death and waste of the defendant, but considering the plaintiff's income, living standard, family size, etc., the defendant merely takes out a loan of KRW 4,00,00, and received it from a financial institution. The defendant's death and waste of the department store cannot be readily concluded as a de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff due to the defendant's death and waste, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and thus, the plaintiff's allegation is without merit. The defendant did not fully pay living expenses during a de facto marital relationship; ② the plaintiff has made a promise to marry in law despite his promise to marry, and the plaintiff has been able to make a marriage report, ③ the defendant's act of de facto marital relationship with other women and his parents, ④ the defendant's act of de facto marital relationship has not been properly exercised during the period of de facto marriage.

The defendant's assertion that the de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was broken down on his principal responsibility is without merit (as alleged by the defendant, the defendant must purchase domestic organic farming materials and his mother's living expenses, even if there are many circumstances in which the amount of card purchase was high, considering the plaintiff's income, living standards, and family size, the amount of KRW 4,00,000 paid by the plaintiff as living expenses, the amount of KRW 4,00,000 paid by the plaintiff as living expenses, and the amount of KRW 1,00,000 paid as living expenses, does not appear to be insufficient for the defendant 2).

3) Therefore, each claim for consolation money on the premise that each party is mainly responsible for the failure of marriage to the other party and each counterclaim is without merit.

3. Determination as to each claim for division of property against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

(a) The value of each property to be divided and 1) the value of each property to be divided in the table 2 attached to the property subject to division (hereinafter referred to as the "detailed list") in the table 2 attached to the property subject to division;

(1) Plaintiff’s net property: 186,127,497 won

(2) The defendant's net property: 81,878,128 won

(3) Total amount: 268,005, 625 won

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 19, 24, 26, 29, Eul evidence Nos. 14 and 16, Eul evidence Nos. 14 and 16, the result of the defendant's response to the order to submit financial transaction information by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The parties’ assertion and determination on the property subject to subdivision

See Attached 3’s assertion and judgment of the party’s party’s assertion. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot divide the property since the Plaintiff’s property was reduced due to the Defendant’s death and waste during the de facto marriage period with the Defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted.

다. 재산분할 방법이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반 사정 즉, 별거 시 기준으로 원 · 피고의 사실혼 기간이 3년 9개월 정도인 점, 원고가 사실혼 기간 동안 피고에게 적지 않은 금액의 생활비를 지급하였고, 피고 자녀들의 대학등록금과 전세보증금도 지급하였던 점, 피고는 원고가 지급한 생활비로 생활하면서 사실혼 전 소유하였던 ○○동 아파트의 처분대금을 모두 피고의 개인 대출채무 변제에 사용한 점 ( 피고는 원고가 지급한 생활비가 부족하여 금융기관의 대출을 받아 생활비에 보탰다고 주장하나, 원고가 지급한 월 4, 000, 000원의 생활비가 금융기관의 대출이 필요할 정도로 부족한 금액으로 보이지 않음은 앞서 본바와 같으므로 사실혼 기간 중 발생한 피고의 대출 채무를 생활비 부족 때문에 발생하였다고 보기는 어렵다 ), 원고는 사실혼 해소 몇 달 전 이 사건 아파트를 피고에게 증여하였는데, 위 아파트의 매매대금은 원고가 전액 마련한 점, 기타 원 · 피고의 나이와 생활능력 등 여러 사정을 고려하여 보면, 재산분할로 이 사건 분할대상 재산에 대하여 각 그 재산 ( 소극재산 포함 ) 을 현재의 소유명의자에게 각 확정적으로 귀속시키기로 정함이 상당하다 .

Therefore, the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim for the payment of the division of property in excess of this, are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's principal claim and the defendant's counterclaim are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Cho Jong-hee

Judges Oju-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.