2014dward717 (Divorce) Divorce

2014dden21355 (Counterclaims) Divorce, etc.

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

Address Busan Shipping Daegu

Gyeongbuk-do, Gyeongbuk-do, at its original domicile

Attorney Lee Do-young

(************************))

Address Busan Sok-gu

Gyeongbuk-do, Gyeongbuk-do, at its original domicile

Law Firm Doz.

1. KimCC (********* 3**********))

D (**************************))

The address of the principal of the case and Busan Shipping Daegu

Gyeongbuk-do Office in the case principal's original domicile

January 26, 2016

February 16, 2016

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

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays 15,00,000 won as consolation money to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and 15% per annum from November 24, 2015 to February 16, 2016 and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Property division:

A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

1) With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1), the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the fixed date of this judgment shall be implemented;

2) The procedures for registration of transfer of ownership on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (2) shall be conducted with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet, for division of property;

3) 16,00,000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment; and

B. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is exempt from the obligation described in the [Attachment 3] List from Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

4. To designate the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case.

5. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the amount of 350,00 won per capita of the principal of the case from November 1, 2014 to the day before the principal of the case becomes adult as the child support for the principal of the case. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay 350,000 won per capita of the principal of the case at the end of each month.

6. Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim for divorce and consolation money against the principal lawsuit and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s claim against the remainder of the counterclaim is dismissed, respectively.

7. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party in total with the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

8. Paragraphs 2 and 5 can be provisionally executed.

1. Main elements;

According to the principal lawsuit, the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant, the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the " plaintiff") and the defendant (the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are divorced.

2. Counterclaim;

1) It is so decided as to paragraphs 1, 4, 3-A(1) and 3 of the Disposition.

2) The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 20,00,000 won as consolation money with 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the application for purport of the counterclaim and for correction of the cause of the counterclaim of this case until the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 150,000,000 won as division of property, and 1515% interest per annum from the day following the day of this decision to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 1 with the child support of the principal of this case from November 1, 2014 to the day of full payment. The plaintiff shall pay 50,000 won per each principal of this case from November 1, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim of divorce and consolation money

A. Facts of recognition

1) The plaintiff and the defendant are the legal couple who reported a marriage on January 10, 201, and the principal of the case was born between two parties.

2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a lot of cases where they were wraped due to the difference of character during marriage and the difference of attitude of fostering the principal of this case, as well as the difference of perception, perception, and values. The Defendant spawdddd the Plaintiff as his occupational father, and the Plaintiff had a pressure on this.

3) From the beginning of early 2013, the Plaintiff studies in order to acquire the qualification of licensed real estate agents, and neglected to care for home affairs and the principal of the case by failing to properly display and clean the meals of the principal of the case, without any difficulty in doing so.

4) Since November 2013, the Plaintiff opened and operated a real estate brokerage office. At that time, the Plaintiff did not distinguish between the Defendant and the Defendant.

5) From February 2014, the Plaintiff started with a man and a partner, and the Defendant found the Plaintiff’s office around March 2014, and appeared to witness a man and a kis where the Plaintiff was working in the parking lot.

6) On April 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not make any effort to improve the marital relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, by asserting that they did not claim the work under the above 5) with the Defendant and doing so.

7) From the time when the defendant started his separate stay as above, he is bringing up the principal of this case to the present day.

8) On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking a divorce against the Defendant, and the Defendant filed the instant counterclaim seeking a divorce, etc. against the Plaintiff on October 20 of the same year.

【Ground of Recognition】 Each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 5 (including each number), and family investigation

Statements in the report, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

According to the above facts, while the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not good due to the difference of character and the difference of opinion on the rearing of the principal of the case, it is reasonable to view that the failure was caused to the extent that it is no longer possible to continue the marriage due to the plaintiff's improper act and family negligence, etc., and that the above failure was more serious than the plaintiff's liability for the failure of marriage. Therefore, since there is a reason for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, the defendant's counterclaim

Furthermore, since the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has been caused by the plaintiff's main cause attributable to the plaintiff's failure, and it is clear that the plaintiff suffered mental loss, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above-mentioned fee to the defendant. Considering the real marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant, the circumstances leading up to the failure of the marriage, the degree of voluntary failure, the plaintiff's economic ability, etc., it is reasonable to determine the consolation money amount at KRW 15,00,000

Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced by counterclaim, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant consolation money of KRW 15,00,000 as consolation money, and to pay damages for delay calculated respectively by 20% per annum under the Civil Act from November 24, 2015 to February 16, 2016, which is the day following the day on which the Plaintiff served the Plaintiff with a copy of the claim for the counterclaim and the claim for correction of the cause of the counterclaim, as the Plaintiff seeks, to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the plaintiff has a principal cause of unfair treatment, such as assault by the defendant against the plaintiff.

Although a divorce is sought by a counterclaim on the ground that the marriage relationship between both parties has disappearedd, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1 (the medical certificate of injury) and Eul evidence 1-3 alone are sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of the principal lawsuit is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) Details of the formation of the property;

1) The defendant was enrolled in 18.3. 18. 2002 **** public management corporation and has been working *******. As of January 1, 2015, the defendant's expected retirement pay is KRW 48, 535, 323.

2) The Plaintiff, most of the marriage periods, was a full-time employee, was in the last half of 2013, and was in the Busan East-dong.

3) On August 25, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) listed in the attached list (1) on August 25, 2008, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on November 25, 200.

4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased a motor vehicle listed in the [Attachment 2] List (hereinafter referred to as a "bee-cat passenger vehicle") and completed new registration in the Plaintiff’s name on September 3, 2008, and purchased a mother-learning passenger vehicle (motor vehicle registration number:******; hereinafter referred to as a "firing passenger vehicle") and completed new registration in the Plaintiff’s name on December 9, 2013.

5) On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained loans from the Korea Exchange Bank in KRW 192,00,000,000 after completing the registration of creation of a lower right than the maximum debt amount of KRW 230,400 with respect to the instant apartment.

6) On July 22, 2014, after the filing of the instant principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring unit of KRW 283,200,000 with respect to the instant apartment, and then took out loans of KRW 236,00,000 from the Han Saemaeul Bank in the attached Table (hereinafter “the instant loan obligations”) and bears the obligations as stated in the attached Table (hereinafter “the instant loan obligations”). The Plaintiff paid out loans to Korea Exchange Bank as part of the said loans.

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap 7, 9, and 16 Evidence 1 and 2, respectively, and family investigation report, and this Court

*** as a result of fact-finding on public management corporation* as a whole, the purport of the pleading.

(b) Property to be divided and its value;

Attached Form (4) is as listed in the detailed statement of the property subject to division.

(c) Whether it falls under the category of subdivision;

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the entire amount of the instant loan obligation should be reflected in his own negative property. However, the foregoing loan obligation occurred after the principal lawsuit of this case was filed, and the amount exceeding the amount of the repayment of an existing loan to Korea Exchange Bank exceeds the amount of the repayment of an existing loan to Korea Exchange Bank shall be deemed to have been made for the community life of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted.

2) In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the amount of the remaining debt that he borrowed from his father's awareness for his use as the cost of living is KRW 50,00,00,00, and it should be included in the small property. However, each statement of the evidence No. 12-1 through No. 4 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

1) Division ratio of property

Considering that the marriage period of the Plaintiff and the Defendant exceeds 13 years, the degree of contribution of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division as seen earlier, the marital life process between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the age, occupation, and livelihood of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is reasonable to determine the division ratio of property by 50%, and 50%, respectively.

2) The method of division of property

Considering the fact that the defendant and the principal of the case reside in the apartment of this case, that the plaintiff used the home-learning car, that the plaintiff used the high-priced bee cruise car, the ownership name and shape of the property subject to division as seen earlier, the process of acquisition and maintenance, the situation of use, convenience of division, etc., with respect to division of property, the above apartment and the above bee-bee cruise car are owned by the defendant, and the above-mentioned apartment and the above-bee cruise car are owned by the defendant, and the loan obligation of this case with respect to the above apartment are allowed to be exempted from the plaintiff, and the remaining property subject to division shall be reverted to each nominal person, but as a result, it is reasonable to determine that the plaintiff pays to the defendant the amount short of the amount to be reverted to the defendant according to the ratio of division of property.

3) Property division amount to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant: 16,000,000 won

[Calculation Form] ① Shares of the defendant according to the division of property among the net property of the plaintiff and the defendant: 166, 718, 946 won

[ = 33, 437, 893 won x 50% of the total net property of the plaintiff and the defendant / 33, 437, 893 won x 50% of the total amount]

② After adding the amount of the loan obligation of this case taken over by the Defendant to the money in the above paragraph (1)

The apartment of this case belonging to the plaintiff, the car of the Benra-crin and the defendant's net goods

amount after deduction: 16, 317, 731 won

[ = 166, 718, 946 + 236, 00, 00, 330, 000, 000, - 17, 410, 000 won - 38, 9

91, 215 won

③ Division of property that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant

② The amount set forth in the above paragraph 16,00,000 won less than the amount set forth in the above paragraph

E. Sub-determination

Therefore, as a division of property, ① the Plaintiff is obligated to transfer the ownership of the instant apartment to the Defendant on the grounds of the division of property on the day when this judgment became final and conclusive, and to take the procedure for transfer registration of ownership based on the division of property on the Vietnam-cirse Automobile, and pay the property division of KRW 16,00,000, and damages for delay calculated at 5% per annum from the day after this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment, and ② the Defendant is obligated to take over the instant loan obligations from the Plaintiff as the discharge of liability.

3. Determination as to the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian and child support

(a) Designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian;

In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the theory of the instant change, such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s marital life and distress situation at the time of family investigation, the age, gender, and parenting of the principal of the case, the intent of fostering the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the import and property status of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is reasonable to designate the Defendant as the person in parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case, on the basis of the above-mentioned growth and welfare of the principal of the case, in full view of all the circumstances indicated in the theory of the instant change, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s family investigation.

(b) Child support;

Considering the fact that the Defendant solely raises the principal of this case from April 2014, the age and health status of the principal of this case, the developments and circumstances of fostering the principal of this case, the background and background of fostering the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s income and property status, the balance of burden, and the child support calculation guidelines established and published by the Seoul Family Court, etc., the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant KRW 350,000 per each person of this case on November 1, 2014, which the principal of this case seeks to pay to the Defendant as the child support of the principal of this case, until the day before the principal of this case becomes adult.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim for counterclaim divorce is accepted for the reasons, and only part of the defendant's counterclaim consolation money is accepted for the reasons within the extent of the above recognition. The plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money against the principal lawsuit is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with regard to division of property, designation of person with parental authority and custody, and child support.

Judges Kim Jong-ok