2014dden3030 (principal office) Divorce, etc.

2014dden 3818 (Counterclaim Divorce, etc.)

X (1976, her husband, her husband)

Attorney Kang Jae-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Y(1980, Denial of Law)

Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. A (the 2009 Students, ASEANs);

2. B (B) (B) 2011 Natives, children);

March 30, 2015

June 8, 2015

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) a solatium of KRW 10,00,000 with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining principal claim of consolation money and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim divorce and the above-mentioned claim are dismissed, respectively.

4. To designate a person with parental authority and a custodian for the principal of the case.

5. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 400,000 per month from June 1, 2015 to December 30, 2028, and KRW 200,000 per month from the next day to July 4, 2030.

6. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) may, each month, hold an interview with the principal of the case in a place where the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) is liable for three-day and four-day period during which the two weeks and four-day period is set between the second week and the fourth week from 17:00 to Sundays 17:00, each of the nine-day and nine-day days during the summer and winter vacation period, and each of the nine-day and four-day names during the summer and winter vacation period.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall actively cooperate with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s visitation right, and shall not interfere with the visitation right, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall notify the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) of whether to conduct the visitation right before the visitation right is completed and the place of delivery of the principal of the case.

7. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) by adding the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim to 10%, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) by 90%, respectively.

8. Paragraphs 2 and 5 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Main Office

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) shall pay 50,000,000 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) with an annual amount of 20% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment. The Defendant shall pay 500,000 won to the principal of this case from the day following the day this judgment was rendered to the child support of the principal of this case until the principal of this case reaches the age of each adult.

Counterclaim

The Defendant and the Plaintiff are divorced. The Plaintiff paid 50,000,000 won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum to the Defendant from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment. The Defendant shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian for the principal of this case. The Plaintiff shall pay 600,000 won to the Defendant for the child support of the principal of this case from the day of the adjudication to the day of each adult completion of the principal of this case.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant completed the marriage report on June 3, 2009, and have the principal of the case who is a minor.

B. The Plaintiff, while working for ○○ hotel, raises the monthly average of approximately KRW 2,00,000 per month, and has a certificate of infant care teachers, while working for ○○ hotel, raises the income while working as a art instructor such as a child care teacher or a kindergarten.

C. The Defendant, without a clear reason, rejected the marital relations in the locking place without a clear reason, left the conversation to solve this problem, and did not have a long-term gender relationship.

On the contrary, the Plaintiff, from June 2014 to late at night, had a doubt in doing any act different from that of the usual meeting, such as dividing the Defendant’s argue and mobile phone text conversations, and receiving the phone outside the meeting. However, on July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff, who became aware that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant had no mother’s mother’s funeral ceremony at his own funeral hall or other funeral hall, was making a false statement.

D. On July 16, 2014, at around 21:00, the Plaintiff installed “MSP”, which is a Do Office Program (hereinafter “MM”) in the Defendant’s mobile phone base.

Around 22:30 on July 16, 2014, the Defendant, who had been unaware of this fact, asked that ○○○ and a mobile phone phone call would talk about the frequency of sexual intercourse at the time when she entered into a sex relationship with her mother, and that at the same time would cause harm to the state of bad quality (the Defendant acknowledged that the Defendant purchased ex post facto drugs on July 17, 2014 from the date of the debate on the fourth change of the court on March 9, 2015). Then, the Defendant clarified that ○○ was planning to divorce with the Plaintiff, and that if ○○○ and re-entered with the instant principal, ○○○ would cause a difference as to the instant principal’s friendship.

Such dialogue is made in the way that the principal of the case is playing together or salpering together with the defendant, and is being salpering.

E. Around July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff denied the Defendant’s face by simply denying it, and then prices the Defendant’s face several times. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s head loss requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment was presented to the Defendant.

The Defendant had discussed to the effect that he was able to avoid sight with other males while staying in the instant case. While the Plaintiff is bringing up the principal of the instant case while living separately with the Defendant, the Defendant regularly allowed visitation with the principal of the instant case to the Defendant.

E. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant accused the Plaintiff on charges of violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act and of assault. Accordingly, on December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment for six months and a suspended sentence of one year and a suspension of qualification for one year ( Jeju District Court Decision 2014Ma1474) and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, on October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of adultery, but the Defendant was suspected of having received a disposition of non-prosecution on January 29, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 3 through 6, Evidence No. 24, Evidence No. 39-1, 2, and Evidence No. 50

Evidence No. 1, 5, 9, 13, Evidence No. 51-3, Evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2-1, 2, and evidence No. 8

- 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 16, 17, and Eul evidence 3-1 to 5-5

The contents of the investigation report by each video or family affairs investigator, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

A. Determination on the claim for divorce and the claim for consolation money

1) Determination

A) A claim for divorce of principal lawsuit: there are reasons under subparagraphs 1 and 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Act.

B) Claim for consolation money: 10,000,000 won and damages for delay shall be accepted within the scope of the principal claim.

【Reasons for Determination】

○ Recognition of the failure of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant wished to divorce by filing a counterclaim with each other; and (b) the Defendant’s act of committing an inappropriate act with ○○ and the Defendant’s act of using violence to the Defendant, which led to the Plaintiff’s act of using violence, should be taken into account the following circumstances: (c) the Plaintiff appears to have aggravated the marriage to the extent that it could not be recovered as of July 17, 2014.

The main liability for the failure of the marriage is the defendant: The defendant notified the plaintiff that the failure of the marriage was caused by the interruption of the marriage relationship with the plaintiff, and did not make efforts to resolve the dispute between the plaintiff and the plaintiff through a serious dialogue or a couple’s consultation, and caused the failure of the marriage by committing a wrongful act with the plaintiff (it is difficult to view that the defendant, who does not recognize a fraudulent act, used violence to the extent that it was a conclusive cause for the failure of the marriage).

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that ○○ and so-called dial-a-phones only engaged in self-defense and did not reach an actual adultery. However, in light of the fact that ○○ mentioned the location and frequency of scambling in dialogue with ○○○, the Defendant asked scambling that scambling was causing the situation in which scambling was conducted, and that the following was requested, and that the Defendant actually purchased post-pambing, it would be sufficient to deem that the Defendant committed an act with ○○ and dial-a-phones. Even if the Defendant assumed that scambling was not done by scambling, it can be deemed that the Defendant committed an act of scambling the marital relationship with scambling, which should be based on pet and trust, was not accepted. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable.

○ The amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be determined in consideration of various circumstances, such as the background and degree of responsibility as seen earlier, marriage period, age, occupation and economic power of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

2) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant are divorced by the principal lawsuit, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 10,000,000 consolation money to the plaintiff with 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment as requested by the plaintiff.

B. Determination on the claim for designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian and the claim for payment of child support

(i) the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian;

The fact that the principal of the case is still a child before entering an elementary school and needs a lot of care of the mother, and as a result of the family investigation of the family affairs investigator, that the mother shows a separate and unrecepted aspect with the mother, and that the principle of priority should be observed in designating a person with parental authority and a custodian for the minor, the defendant, who is the mother, needs to be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian for the principal of the case.

However, most of all, the principals of this case have been living in the present residence continuously after their birth, and the plaintiff, who is a child career, raises the principal of this case as a child career, and is designated as a child career and a child career, the principal of this case can maintain the previous child care environment, such as kindergarten, children's house, educational environment such as finite house and educational institute, family relation, and relationship with friendly relationship, etc. centering on the principal's residence. Therefore, the psychological and emotional impulses of the principal of this case can be minimized. On the other hand, since the defendant did not secure a relatively stable workplace or dwelling place compared with the plaintiff, it is difficult to designate the defendant as a person with parental authority and the child career until he brought about a significant change in the child care environment.

In addition, there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff’s emotional and physical abuse of the principal of this case or brought up and brought up the principal of this case in a harmful environment during a period of about one year after the Plaintiff’s separation from the Defendant and the Defendant’s separation, and there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff is bringing up the principal of this case in a harmful environment (it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s method of bringing up was erroneous or the Defendant’s environment was dangerous). Moreover, in light of the situation in which the Plaintiff is relatively closely cooperating with the Defendant in the visitation negotiation on behalf of the principal of this case, there is no need to change the current environment of bringing up.

Furthermore, there is no question whether the Defendant completely cut off the relationship with ○○, the other party to the wrongful act, is a negative factor in designating the Defendant as a person with parental authority and a custodian. On April 13, 2015, the Defendant was the head that no longer did not appear with ○○ on the date of mediation of this court on April 13, 2015. However, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Defendant expressed that ○○ would cause ○○ to raise the awareness of ○○○ in the event that ○○○ had a high-ranking family and the principal of this case divorced after divorce with the Plaintiff, and that ○○○○○○ would not have any relation with ○○○○○○○○’s family and the principal of this case, and on April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff did not appear to be desirable if the Defendant asserted that ○○○ was on the part of the Defendant’s residence in contact the principal of this case and that ○○○ was on the Defendant’s living together with the principal of this case.

In addition, the plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian for the principal of this case in consideration of the intention and age of the principal of this case, a plan for fostering the principal of this case, a parenting environment and educational environment, the place of rearing the assistant and economic ability, and the career and occupation of the plaintiff and the defendant.

2) Child support

Considering various circumstances such as the age, occupation and career of the principal of this case and the plaintiff, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant pays 200,000 won per month to the plaintiff as the child support of the principal of this case from June 1, 2015 to the day before the principal of this case becomes an adult.

(c) Interview right (ex officio judgment);

A non-nurt-child has the right to interview with the principal of the case unless it is contrary to the welfare of the principal of the case, taking into account the age, rearing circumstances of the principal of the case, the intent of the parties, etc., determining visitation negotiations as ordered is deemed appropriate for the emotional stability and welfare of the principal of the case, and the plaintiff shall not actively cooperate with and interfere with the exercise of the visitation rights against the principal of the case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and the claim for consolation money within the scope of the above recognition shall be accepted with reasonable grounds, and the remaining claim for consolation money and counterclaim divorce and consolation money shall be dismissed without reasonable grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition with regard to the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, the claim for child support, and the visitation right.

Transferability