In a case where Gap and Eul had a legal couple Byung as a child Byung, but before the divorce lawsuit was brought, a written agreement was prepared to the effect that "the child support shall be paid in one lump sum, and the child support shall not be raised in one lump sum, but they shall not be paid in one lump sum, on the other hand, although Eul and Eul had a child Byung as a legal couple, before the divorce lawsuit was brought, the case holding that the agreement to pay the child support shall not be effective since the agreement to pay the child support clearly violates Byung's welfare.

In a case where Gap and Eul had a child Byung as a legal couple, but before the divorce lawsuit was brought, they prepared a written agreement with the purport that "the child support shall be paid in one lump sum to Eul, and the person with parental authority shall be the person with parental authority, and the person with parental authority shall be the person with parental authority, and the person Gap shall be paid the child support to Eul in one half of the joint lease deposit, and the person Gap shall not file a lawsuit claiming the payment of the child support in one lump sum, but Eul filed a claim for the payment of the child support in the form of periodic Fund, the case holding that the agreement between Gap and Eul was not only did not lead to any divorce prior to the agreement between Gap and Eul, and that the payment of the child support shall not be effective in light of the property and income status of Gap and Eul, circumstances of Byung, and

Article 837 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Attorney Yang Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Principal of the case

September 11, 2015

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall be divorced by the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's remaining consolation money and the claim for division of property are dismissed.

3. The person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case shall designate the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in the instant case:

A. Payment of 3,801,00 won with child support in the past and 5% per annum from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment;

B. From August 24, 2015 to the date the principal of the case enters a middle school is paid KRW 500,000 per month, KRW 600,00 per month from the date of entering a middle school to the date of entering a high school, and KRW 700,00 per month from the date of entering a high school to October 23, 202, respectively.

5. The plaintiff is entitled to visit the principal of the case from 10:00 p.m. to 17:00 p.m. monthly. The plaintiff and the defendant must faithfully consult on the issue of changing the frequency and time of visitation due to the growth of the principal of the case.

6. Paragraph 4 can be provisionally executed.

7. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

【Main Office】

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) shall be designated as the person in parental authority and the custodian of the principal of this case. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000 per month from the day following the delivery of the instant complaint to October 24, 202 with the child support of the principal of this case.

[Counterclaim]

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 10 million won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the counterclaim of this case to the day of full payment. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 23 million won as division of property and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of the final judgment of this case to the day of full payment. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 19 million won as consolation money and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of the final judgment of this case to the day of full payment. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 19 million won as consolation money and 19 million won as child support, and 5% interest per annum from the day after the date of the final judgment of this case to the day of full payment. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 8 million won each month from the date of the decision of this case to October 23, 2022.

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 March 7, 2011.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were frequently sleeped while married life. Accordingly, the Defendant’s house around May 8, 2013 was in separate living until now. The Defendant gave birth to the principal of the case on October 24, 2013, and was living alone.

C. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) drafted a written agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “a person with parental authority over the principal of the case shall be the Defendant, jointly with the person with parental authority over the principal of the case; (b) the person with parental authority over the principal of the case shall be the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff divided the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s joint lease deposit of KRW 90,000,000,000, deducting KRW 21,000,000,000 from the joint lease deposit of KRW 90,00,000,00

D. The Defendant, as a co- lessee of a residential area, received 45 million won (1/2 of KRW 90 million) equivalent to his/her share from the lessor, and changed the mind that he/she was paid the child support in the form of a fixed fund rather than receiving the child support in lump sum. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business with cargo vehicle prior to marriage.

E. Afterwards, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach a divorce and reached the instant lawsuit.

F. Meanwhile, based on around May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff had KRW 150,00, KRW 6,710, KRW675, KRW 1,892,210 as the cancellation refund, and KRW 8,752,885 as the total of KRW 62,870 as the cancellation refund, and KRW 2,150,355 as the total of KRW 2,150,355 as the cancellation refund.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10; Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including each number), Alurian Life Insurance Co., Ltd.; Korean Ababio Life Insurance Co., Ltd.; the National Pension Service; and the fact-finding (order to submit) about the same secondary fire marine insurance Co., Ltd.; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim divorce claim

In light of the above-mentioned facts and the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant want to divorce through the main lawsuit and the counterclaim of this case, and that the plaintiff and the defendant have not made efforts to recover the marriage since May 8, 2013, it is reasonable to deem that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant have reached a failure to the extent that it is no longer recoverable. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and the defendant's counterclaim for divorce are with reasons under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

3. Judgment on the claim of consolation money against counterclaim

According to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are responsible for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant who were unable to smoothly resolve the conflict between husband and wife even though they had not been married, and the degree of liability seems to be similar in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to resolve the marriage through divorce and not to claim consolation money; and (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have agreed to claim consolation money.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim for consolation money on the premise that the other party is more responsible for the failure of marriage is without merit.

4. Determination on the counterclaim for division of property

As seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the marriage period of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the formation and management of property, ownership and use status, convenience of division, and the details of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is reasonable to divide the property subject to division at the ratio of 50% by the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively. Accordingly, when calculating the amount of legitimate division of property of the Defendant, the division of property of the instant case was additionally received KRW 37,801,265 if the Defendant deducts KRW 2,150,355 of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s total property amounting to 50%.

However, since the defendant received KRW 45 million among the lease deposit, the defendant eventually held more than KRW 7,198,735 ( KRW 45 million - KRW 37,801,265).

Therefore, there is no reason for the defendant's counterclaim for division of property on the premise that there is money to additionally divide the property.

5. Determination ex officio on designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, a claim for child support, and visitation right;

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

The plaintiff also seems to have a considerable deal of the arrival of the principal of this case. However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant raises the principal of this case during a separate period of time, not only the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the reason why the marital life and the failure of the defendant, the defendant's intent and the attitude of fostering the defendant, the situation where the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant has been strengthened, the age and gender of the principal of this case, and all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age and gender, it is reasonable to designate the defendant as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of this

(b) Claim for child support;

As long as the defendant is designated as a person with parental authority and a supporter of the principal of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to share the child support as the father of the principal of this case. Considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the plaintiff's occupation and income level, the age and parenting status of the principal of this case, and equity in sharing the burden, it is reasonable to pay 50,000 won per month from October 24, 2013 to October 23, 2015 to the day before the principal of this case enters a middle school, 60,000 won per month from the date of entering a middle school to October 23, 202, and 70,000 won per month from the date of entering a high school to October 23, 2012. The child support portion in the past shall be determined by deducting 1,100,000 won (22 months x 50,000 won) from the date of closing the argument of this case to August 23, 2008,71.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay a lump sum for the child support to the principal of this case, and agreed not to file a separate claim for child support, and therefore, this part of the claim was alleged to be contrary to or unjust in the subordinate agreement. However, there was no confusion between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as the agreement to pay a lump sum for the child support between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was significantly contrary to the welfare of the principal of this case, considering the property and income status of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, circumstances faced with the principal of this case, and the amount of the lump sum payment.

(c) Interview right (ex officio judgment);

On the other hand, a non-nive parent has the right to interview with the principal of the case, unless it is contrary to the welfare of the principal of the case. Considering the above-mentioned facts, the age, gender, living environment and parenting conditions of the principal of the case, and all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the case, such as the plaintiff and the degree of contact with the principal of the case, it is reasonable to determine the frequency and time of visitation rights as prescribed in Paragraph 5 of the Disposition.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims for divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant are accepted on the grounds of their merit, and the defendant's consolation money and the claim for division of property are dismissed on the grounds of their merit. It is so decided as per Disposition with regard to the designation of a person with parental authority and the custodian, the claim for child support, and the visitation right.

Judges Kim Hong-chul

1) From June 21, 201 to October 6, 2014, when calculating the period of living (from March 7, 2011 to May 8, 2013) at KRW 3,653,100, the amount of payment would be 3,653,100 x 688/1,204.