2011ddan24670 Divorce and consolation money, etc.

Fixed 00 O (49*****-2****)

400 (4**********)*

400 (9*************

July 5, 2012

August 16, 2012

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won per month from August 31, 2012 to January 28, 2019 as the child support of the principal of the case.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced. The defendant shall be designated as a person in parental authority and guardian of the principal of the case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant live together with the marriage on January 5, 1970, and they are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on September 2, 1976.

나 . 원고와 피고는 혼인 후 두 딸인 심□□(1971. 8. 28.생), 심■■(1978. 2. 15.생 ) 을 두었으나, 피고는 아들이 없자 대를 이을 생각에 중국여자를 데리고 와 원고와 딸들이 있는 집에서 8개월간 같이 생활하기도 하였다.

However, the Chinese woman's return to China was unable to engage in pregnancy, and the defendant took the principal of the case who was born at a small temple located in the Chinese history of the Qinsan East, and filed a report of birth and the birth.

C. The defendant operated a billiard, iron shop, restaurant, etc. during the marriage period, and returned to Busan, Chungcheong, and Seoul, but did not have a proper place of work within the marriage period. At the same time, the defendant's parents have been supported by the defendant's parents to solve the problem of residence and living expenses.

In addition, in the early stage of marriage, the defendant wasted property by gambling despite the plaintiff's detention, and even when she fights with the plaintiff and she fights with the plaintiff or gets a child, the defendant used violent language, and even her knife and knife with the plaintiff.

D. In around 2002, the Plaintiff and the Defendant lived together with the instant principal and the instant △△△△△△△△, the birth of the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to live a separate life from that time after consultation with the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) around 2002, the Plaintiff, a growing point of in the infertility between husband and wife due to economic issues, the Defendant’s unfaithful family life, verbal abuse, etc.

E. At around July 201, the Plaintiff had a dispute with the Defendant’s mother as the instant principal’s issue, and at that time, the Plaintiff had a great impact on the Defendant’s intervention. On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff had been filing the instant lawsuit with the instant court on the following day on August 25, 201, when the △△△△△, which had brought up the instant principal, died of the Plaintiff’s own death. As such, the Plaintiff had been divorced on this day, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the instant court on October 6, 2011.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including paper numbers), family investigation report, and the whole purport of oral argument]

2. Divorce;

According to the above facts of recognition, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant seems to have been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover more due to the defendant's economic infinite ability, unfaithful family life, verbal abuse, the problem of fostering the principal of the case, and the long-term separation of the period of time, etc., and as such, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified.

3. Person with parental authority, child care, and child support;

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

On the other hand, considering all circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the family life and distress situation of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age and gender of the principal of this case, economic situation, the age and gender of the principal of this case, and especially the principal of this case, are being raised by the plaintiff's Dong △△△△△, a living together with the plaintiff from the enemy to August 201, 201, and is currently being brought up by Dok-gu, a big father, a great father, and the defendant's personal life and distress, and it is considerably reduced compared to that of the principal of this case, and the defendant cannot raise the principal of this case by himself. On the other hand, unlike the purport of this claim, it is desirable to designate the plaintiff as the person with parental authority and the guardian of the principal of this case, in order to promote the plaintiff's smooth growth and welfare.

B. Child support (ex officio determination)

As long as the Plaintiff was designated as a person with parental authority over the principal of the case, the Defendant is obligated to share the child support with the Plaintiff as the child of the principal of the case. Although the Defendant is sufficiently recognized as having a high blood pressure and urology while living an old age of 68 years of age with no occupation, the Defendant is obliged to pay the child support ex officio because it is recognized that the Defendant is not a secondary support duty of support for the other party's living activity after maintaining his own living. The parent's support duty for his child is not a secondary support duty of support for the other party's living activity, but a primary support duty of living maintenance that must show the same degree as his own living. In addition, it is not a fixed income without a high-priced position at the present, but has a field of 69 million won as the officially announced land value in ▽ri-gun, and there is no possibility for the Defendant to receive the child support ex officio (in view of the Plaintiff and the Defendant's age, occupation and economic situation, it is difficult to exempt the State from the obligation to pay the child support.

Therefore, considering the gender, age, and educational situation of the principal of the case, the status of the plaintiff and the defendant's property, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of the case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won per month from August 31, 2012, which is the last day of the month in which the date of the judgment of this case belongs to the principal of this case to January 28, 2019, which is the day before the principal of this case becomes adult.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with regard to the designation of a person with parental authority, a person with parental authority, and a child support.

Rapped money exchange

1) The plaintiff asserts that the above KRW 150 million is not currently consumed for all of the child support and living costs of the principal of the case during that period.