2011Dhap6793 Divorce, solatium, division of property, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

1. C

2. D;

November 1, 2012

December 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25 million as solatium to the Plaintiff; and (b) from July 29, 201 to December 2, 2012, 201.

14. Paying 5% interest per annum and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed.

4. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 17,9430,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

6. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 60,000 won per person of the principal of the case from December 14, 2012 to the time when the principal of the case becomes adult as child support for the principal of the case.

7. The defendant may hold an interview with the principal of the case as follows.

(a) 2: 4: 00 to 17:0 on the following day) New Year’s Day, New Year’s Day, New Year’s Day, and New Year’s Day, 7:00 on the following day, respectively, after entering elementary schools of the principal of the case (7:0 on the New Year’s Day), and other dates determined by the Defendant in consultation with the Plaintiff;

B. Method: The defendant takes the principal of the case in his residence and takes the principal of the case into his residence again, and the plaintiff must actively cooperate with him.

8. Of the costs of lawsuit, 30% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

9. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced from the plaintiff. The defendant shall be consolation money of 50 million won and this shall not apply to the plaintiff.

From the date of service of the complaint of this case to the date of pronouncement of the judgment of this case, 5% per annum and the next day to the date of repayment.

20,000,000 won and 20,000 won and 20,000

L. D. 20% interest per annum from the day after the judgment of this case becomes final to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and guardian of the principal. The defendant shall nurture the principal of the case to the plaintiff.

the next day of February 24, 2027,00 won per month from the day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to February 24, 2027.

By June 15, 2029, 100,000 won per month shall be paid at the end of each month.

1. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

(a) Facts of recognition;

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff and the defendant filed a marriage report on October 15, 2007, 2006 with Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 7, Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 11 (including branch numbers), family affairs investigation report, the purport of the whole pleadings 1): Marriage and children: The marriage report on October 15, 2007, and the defendant filed a marriage report on September 9, 2007, and the marriage report on October 15, 2007.

B) On October 207, the Plaintiff was pregnant the principal of the instant case before marriage. Around the end of the hospital (Minju 25 weeks), “the head of the fetus was large and the number of arms and legs was short from the doctor in charge after undergoing the first-wave test at the hospital.” At the end of November 2007, the length of 'bucks of the fetus’ again from the doctor in charge (Minju 29 weeks) at the end of November 2007, which might be short. It may not be simply a smallest case, but it may be difficult to exclude the possibility of the Danasium.” The Defendant abandoned the Plaintiff’s objection. However, the Plaintiff did not actively exercise the right to receive the inspection, and the Plaintiff considered it only as a smallest one.

C) On February 5, 2008, the Plaintiff given birth to the principal of the instant case, and there was no problem, such as Diversia, at all.

D) On January 2010, 2010, on the ground that the principal of this case was elbow C, and was inspected at a hospital, the doctor in charge was recommended to undergo an inspection by a large hospital that there is anything on the side of the hospital. Accordingly, on February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the principal of this case received a gene test, etc. in the Guroman Hospital, and the results of the inspection around April 23, 2010. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were all normal, but the principal of this case was diagnosed as a multi-mar formation certificate (MED). The Plaintiff and the Defendant received a significant impact on the principal of this case C’s disability.

E) The Plaintiff began slowly to take advantage of the instant principal C’s disability as a reality and to consider how to raise his/her children.

However, the defendant's refusal to communicate while being mixed in the room.

In this process, the Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently disputed with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant committed violent acts, such as obsing the Plaintiff or gathering of goods, etc. in the location where the principal of the case was located.

F) Although the Plaintiff did not have any problem as to the Plaintiff’s gene test result, the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff whether the result of the examination conducted by the Defendant on June 201, 201, on the part of the Plaintiff, was a genetic problem with the Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff had to undergo a re-examination. The Plaintiff was given a reply that “from the side of the joint and several hybrid hospital, i.e., the Plaintiff was normal, son, and the need for a non-examination.” However, the Plaintiff was again subject to a genetic test at an unstable mind, and was judged to have been normal around July 201.

G) Since then, the Plaintiff had his house in the instant case.

B. Determination as to divorce and consolation money claim

1) A claim for divorce: A claim for consolation money for reasons under Article 840 subparag. 3 and 6 of the Civil Act: A claim for divorce shall be partially accepted (for this case, 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of the adjudication of this case, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment) recognition of a marriage failure

Taking into account various circumstances, such as the fact of recognition, in particular, the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant want to divorce with each other for a long time and live separately, and that the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant becomes worse to the extent that they could not be recovered, and that there seems to be no possibility to recover mutual trust and continue their marital life.

B) When the Plaintiff and the Defendant were aware of the failure of a child that the primary responsibility for failure was the Defendant, the degree of shock and pain that the Plaintiff and the Defendant suffered is different. If so, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a married community, should have left their lives, left their lives, and endeavored to overcome the disability and grow up in a sound manner. However, the Defendant did not see the disability of the Plaintiff’s child as the cause of the disability on the part of the Plaintiff’s side, and did not go against the labor and criticism, and as a result, the two persons did not lose their trust, thereby having reached the failure. Therefore, the primary responsibility for failure lies on the Defendant.

2. Determination on the claim for division of property

[Grounds for recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 11, each of the above evidence, the response to the order to submit financial information, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant have been in office as a teacher from before marriage until now. 2) The Defendant, who received around December 200 the compensation for death from the Defendant, as a seed money, did not pay the property as the seed money.

3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant formed the income of two persons’ benefits and the property of the Defendant prior to marriage, such as the attached table of the detailed statement of division property (hereinafter referred to as “attached table”).

B. For the following reasons, the lease deposit amount under the name of the Defendant was KRW 200 million. However, comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence Nos. 6 through 10, and No. 16, the Defendant’s return of KRW 50 million from the lessor on July 4, 201, the sum of the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 to KRW 50,000,000,000 to KRW 50,000,000,000 to the post office and the Industrial Bank of Korea. Since the above post office and the Industrial Bank of Korea included both the lease deposit amount under the name of the Defendant, the amount of the lease deposit amount under the name of the Defendant was presumed to have been withdrawn since the Defendant’s withdrawal was not made after the instant lawsuit was filed under the name of the Defendant.

C. Division ratio and method 1): Plaintiff 35%, Defendant 65%

[Ground of determination: The method of division of property 2) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) the facts acknowledged earlier; (b) both the Plaintiff and the Defendant received benefits of a similar level; (c) the Plaintiff was in most charge of family affairs and childcare during marriage; (d) the Plaintiff was on leave of absence and care for the principal of the case with disability; (e) the Plaintiff was able to pay considerable cost and effort to treat and nurture the principal of the case; (c) the period of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (d) the size of the property that

○ The Plaintiff and the Defendant own property under their own name, but it is reasonable for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the property division amounting to KRW 177,943,00,00 which the Defendant assessed according to the property division ratio as follows in cash.

○ Accounting Method: [523,413,580 won (total amount of net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant) ¡¿ 35% (the Plaintiff’s net property division ratio)] - 3.760,000 won (the Plaintiff’s net property) 17,9430,000 won (the amount less than 00 won for the convenience of calculation)

D. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 17,9430,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Determination on a claim for designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian, a claim for child support, and an interview right (ex officio)

(a) Person with parental authority and custodian: Designation as a plaintiff; and

[Grounds for Determination: The intentions of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age of the principal of the case, the past and present situation of the principal of the case, etc.]

(b) Claim for child support: To pay 600,000 won per person of the case from the date this judgment was rendered until the date when the principal of the case becomes adult.

[Grounds for Determination: Average monthly child support for urban areas based on total income of the plaintiff and the defendant, income ratio for the plaintiff and the defendant, assets owned by the defendant, etc.]

C. Interview negotiation (ex officio determination) The defendant, a person with parental authority and career of the principal of this case, has the right to interview the principal of this case, so long as the plaintiff is designated. In full view of the facts recognized earlier and the age, gender, living environment, present situation, etc. of the principal of this case, determination of the time and method of the visitation negotiation as described in paragraph (7) of this Article is consolationing the emotional stability and welfare of the principal of this case.

(2) is reasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for divorce of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of the above recognition, and the claim for consolation money shall be accepted on the grounds of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed on the grounds of the reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the claim for division of property, the claim for designation of a person with parental authority

The presiding judge shall transfer the number of judges

Judges Shin Young-hee

Judges Jeong Jong-tae

A person shall be appointed.