1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant-Counterclaim”) is (1).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant got married on September 5, 2009, completed the marriage report on August 13, 2010, and made D (E) under the chain.

The Appointor (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) is the mother of the Plaintiff.

B. On January 2, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant aggravated the marital relationship, and subsequently, they brought a lawsuit of divorce, etc. with Seoul Family Court 2016Dhap3202 (main office), and 2016Dhap33219 (Counterclaim) (Counterclaim), the court rendered a judgment as follows (hereinafter “instant divorce judgment”) on March 29, 2017 and on August 30, 2017.

The above judgment was finalized on September 15, 2017.

【Summary of the Divorce Judgment】

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced by the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

2. The plaintiff's claim of consolation money and the defendant's counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

4. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be jointly designated as the person in parental authority of the principal of the case, and the plaintiff shall be designated as the person in parental authority.

6. The defendant may visit the principal of the case as follows.

First, from 19th day to 17th day of Sundays each month;

(b) Secondly, from 10 p.m. to 19 p.m. each month; and

(c) Two-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-half-one-one period for drilling, including August 15;

(d) Twelth 13 days during the summer and winter vacation period; and

E. The above A.

paragraphs (1) through (4)

In addition to the visitation right under paragraph, the defendant may freely participate in school events of the principal of the case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety has been rendered against the plaintiff's claim of consolation money in the judgment of divorce in the case of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's defense is unlawful.

However, according to the above basic facts, the part of the claim for consolation money of the divorce judgment of this case is a divorce under Article 2(1)(c) of the Family Litigation Act.