Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Attorney Song Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) (Attorney Kim Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 17, 2008

1. In accordance with the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are divorced.

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

A. 5% interest per annum from August 21, 2007 to August 14, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, shall be paid as consolation money, 30,000,000 won, and 30% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and

B. As to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet as the division of property, the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the fixed date of this judgment is implemented.

3. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), respectively, for five minutes in total, including the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

5. Paragraph 2 (a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

In the principal lawsuit: Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) pay 28,597,040 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as division of property.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall be divorced from the defendant. The plaintiff shall pay 30,000,000 won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum to the day of complete payment from the day following the judgment of this case.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on August 18, 1978, and they have Nonparty 1 (the birth of January 3, 1979) and Nonparty 2 (the birth of November 18, 1982) among them.

B. During the marriage period, the Defendant frequently assaulted the Plaintiff at the end of the husband’s fighting match, which was derived from the appearance of another woman and the awareness of the Plaintiff’s relationship with the other woman. On October 31, 2001, the Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff on the inside and outside of the 10-day inside and outside of the 10-day inside and outside of the her mother. On September 2002, the Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff at the place where the Defendant’s mother was in the her mother.

C. After that, around November 2005, the Defendant used the Plaintiff to assault and take part in the elbows column. On August 12, 2006, the Defendant collected half the iron scam of the restaurant, and suffered two fingers of the blue in the blue column. On June 4, 2007, at the time of telephone communications with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was hospitalized, and then the Plaintiff was under diagnosis and treatment under the diagnosis of “mix-type uneasiness” after the end of July 2007.

D. Meanwhile, the Defendant suffered from sexual illness two times around 1984 and around September 2002 due to the establishment of a relationship with another woman, etc., and the Plaintiff was under medical treatment on the wind to move this to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 2, 3, 6, and 14 of Evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-3, A, 6, and 14, the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination, part of the Defendant’s personal examination

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

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was no longer likely to be recovered due to the Defendant’s assault against the Plaintiff within the period of marriage, sexual intercourses with other women, sexual intercourses, and symptoms. Such acts of the Defendant constitute grounds for judicial divorce under subparagraphs 3 and 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Act.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the marital relationship between the plaintiff's other male and the plaintiff's other male's unlawful act and frequent running away, etc., and sought divorce or consolation money as stated in the purport of the principal lawsuit against the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently without reliance on the defendant's examination result. Thus, there is no reason for the defendant's counterclaim divorce or consolation money claim.

B. Furthermore, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered a considerable mental suffering due to the failure of a matrimonial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant due to the above defendant's act of the defendant's fault. Thus, the defendant has a duty to pay it in money. In light of the age and family relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant, the background leading up to the failure of the marriage and the marriage period, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the defendant by the plaintiff

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff consolation money at 30,000,000 won and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 21, 2007 to August 14, 2008, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Determination on the claim for division of property in the principal lawsuit

(a) Details of the formation of property and property subject to division;

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) The Plaintiff, while taking full charge of family affairs and child care after marriage, has raised living expenses by taking full charge of three-day days from around 1993 to May 1997 (the monthly salary was 600,000 won). From May 1997 to December 2007, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant, such as a simple restaurant and a general Chinese food store, at the net Japanese won (the above period was 200-3 million won per month except for the blank period of 1-2 years).

(B) Around July 1, 1979, about one year after marriage, the Defendant joined the Hong-ri Council (former Red Day Distribution), and worked for 28 years, and retired on December 5, 2007. The average wage as of November 2007 immediately before retirement was KRW 2,540,655 per month.

(C) The details of active property under the Plaintiff’s name are as follows, and there is no small property.

(1) The amount equivalent to KRW 61,621,80,800 in total, of the market price of salary 83 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 1 omitted) and two above above ground-based housing units, which was acquired on January 25, 2006.

(2) Total amount of net agricultural cooperatives deposit claims equivalent to 23,165,843 won (based on the end of August 2007)

(3) The aggregate amount of premiums paid for KRW 27,546,123 (as at the end of August 2007: 20,000,000,000 representing a little of 70% of the above amount, shall be deemed as both expected cancellation refund and actual value).

④ KRW 16,00,000, which the Plaintiff withdrawn from the passbook under the name of the Defendant on October 17, 2007 (the time of withdrawal was after the institution of the principal suit in this case, and it was before and after the institution of the principal suit in this case, and there was no explanation from the Plaintiff on the details of withdrawal, use place, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff still holds the amount equivalent to the above amount in cash or in the form of modified property).

(D) On the other hand, the details of the Defendant’s active property are as follows, and there is no small property.

(5) An amount equivalent to 37,00,000 won in the market price of real estate listed in the attached Form acquired on March 16, 205.

(6) The amount equivalent to 10,492,600 won in a market price of 2,281 square meters in the 2,281 square meters prior to the establishment of a Doletlet (number 2 omitted) on the screen of the Doletin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City

(7) The amount equivalent to KRW 12,934,00,000 at the market price of 580 square meters in return for a new interest rate (number 3 omitted) shall be equivalent to the new interest rate (number 3 omitted), 580 square meters, which was acquired on July 25,

(8) The amount equivalent to 71,051,480 won in total, equivalent to 71,051,480 won in the market price of the housing, stores, and environmental sanitation facilities of 114 square meters wide (number 4 omitted) and two above ground-based housing, two-story housing, and two-story above, acquired on January 12, 2006

① The Defendant asserted to the effect that he received on January 15, 2008 after his retirement from the Hong Kong Association (the Defendant’s retirement allowance is in the state of being used for normal purposes, such as the repayment of the loan and the repayment of the loan and the payment, etc. However, as seen later, it is difficult to recognize the existence of the above loan and the above loan and the above loan are obligations for common life of the couple, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant still holds the above amount in the form of cash or modified property).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence 1-2, the result of this court's entrustment of market price appraisal to non-party 3, the red-interest association of this court, the result of this court's inquiry about the plaintiff's principal inquiry, the result of part of defendant's principal inquiry, the result of part of defendant's principal inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, the positive property under the name of the plaintiff and the defendant was formed and maintained by the joint efforts of the plaintiff and the defendant during their marital life, and shall be subject to the division of the property of this case. The net property shall be KRW 303,853,051 (=the sum of the property (i) through (ix) above: Provided, That the value of the property shall be calculated as KRW 20,000,000).

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the defendant's debt amounting to KRW 30,700,000 should be included in the property division of this case, even though he borrowed from the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 five times in total from February 10, 2004 to February 22, 2007, and paid out on January 24, 2008. However, the defendant presented the supporting documents (Article 2-1, 2-2) only before the closing of the argument of this case, but it is difficult to recognize the existence of the above loan obligation itself, considering the fact that the defendant did not submit all such objective supporting documents as account transfer details concerning the loan and repayment of the above money, and even considering the process of the loan and the place of use, there is no supporting evidence that the defendant borrowed or used the above money for the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant joint (the defendant's assertion that the above money was borrowed from the non-party 4 in the process of union operation is not accepted).

(b) The ratio and method of division of property;

(1) In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, occupation and livelihood, degree of their contributions to the formation and maintenance of property; (b) the period of marital life; (c) the process of the failure thereof; and (d) the developments leading up to the failure thereof; and (c) and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, it is reasonable

(2) Furthermore, it is reasonable to determine that the property to be divided is to be transferred to the Plaintiff by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the process of acquiring the property to be divided; (b) the current title of the property to be owned; (c) the intention of the parties; (d) the convenience of the division of property; and (e) the above property to be divided, among the above property to be divided, is to be reverted to the Plaintiff; and (v) the above or the above property to be reverted to the Defendant, respectively, to the Defendant; (v) the above property is to be reverted to the Plaintiff, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff and the above non-party 2 currently reside therein (if so, the above property is to be transferred to the Plaintiff: (i) the net property to be reverted to the Plaintiff; (iv) + + (iv) the + + + 51.93% + the £«: the net property to be reverted to the Defendant; and (v) the property is equivalent to 146,065,408 won (+ + ＋ ＋ ＋ ＋ ＋

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the fixed date of the judgment with respect to the real estate (the above property) recorded in the attached list as property division to the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money is justified, and each of them is dismissed as the defendant's counterclaim is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money is reasonable as to the plaintiff's claim for division of property. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-sung