2013D 201864. Divorce ( principal action)

2014dmon202482 (Counterclaim division of property)

The grandchildrenAC - 2)

Address

Reference domicile

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

(B) - - 1)

Address

Reference domicile

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Attorney Lee In-bok

1. SCC (SCC - 4)

2. SDR (D - 4)

The case principal's address and reference domicile are the same as the plaintiff

April 7, 2015

April 21, 2015.

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) are divorced.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays 10,00,000 won as consolation money to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and 20% per annum from January 7, 2014 to April 21, 2015, with 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is a division of property against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) as division of property;

A. With respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet (2) the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the fixed date of this judgment shall be conducted, and

(b) pay 16,00,000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment becomes final to the day of complete payment.

4. The plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant) shall be designated as a person in parental authority and a custodian of the principal of the case.

5. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the child support amounting to KRW 1,00,000 per month from January 6, 2014 to June 19, 2020, and KRW 500,000 per month from the following day to March 9, 2023.

6. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) may contact the principal of the case as follows until the principal of the case becomes adult.

(a) schedule;

1) Second, fourth Sundays 10 to 18:00

2) During the instant principal’s summer and winter vacation, each of the four-day four-day four-day days, each of which is determined by agreement between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) (the first day: 10: 00 to the last day: 00).

(b) Place and method;

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) (Counterclaim Plaintiff) took part in the visitation right at the place that the principal of the instant case and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) wanted to take part in the visitation right at the place that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) wanted to take part in the visitation right.

7. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining claim of consolation money is dismissed.

8. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party in total with the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

9. Paragraphs 2 and 5 can be provisionally executed.

1. Main elements;

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) are divorced. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 30,000,000 consolation money with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a duplicate of the principal of this case to the day of full payment. The Plaintiff shall be designated as a person in parental authority and custodian of the principal of this case. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 50,000 won per capita per principal of this case from the day of delivery of a duplicate of the principal of this case to the day of full payment. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 1 the Plaintiff 50,000 won per principal of this case from the day of delivery of the duplicate of the principal of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Preliminary counterclaim (a claim based on the premise that the plaintiff's claim for divorce is accepted);

The Plaintiff, as a result of the division of property, has implemented the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the division of property on the basis of two-thirds of each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (1) and (2).

1. Determination as to the claim for divorce and consolation money

A. Facts of recognition

1) On February 27, 2000, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) were married couple on April 6, 200 of the Act that reported marriage; (b) the instant principal was born between the two parties.

2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have an emotional communication due to lack of conversation from the beginning of marriage.

3) The Defendant, while working for a business management office in a stock company, was issued to a business position in around 2009, and the Defendant voluntarily retired around 2010.

4) However, the Defendant continued to make an investment in full-time shares without seeking another workplace and neglecting the relationship with his/her family members. In general, the Defendant failed to make an investment, resulting in a significant loss of the suppression.

5) The Defendant’s excessive stock investment and loss caused an appraisal to a very serious degree, and a mixed person or the Plaintiff was able to fluorate or take a bath, and there were many cases where a mobile phone or other objects were collected.

6) Accordingly, the Plaintiff or the instant principals were aware of the Defendant’s snow and had a chilled life, and caused the Defendant to feel more fear and apprehensions, and the conversation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was also insufficient.

7) On September 2013, the Plaintiff completed all preparations to start his/her sand site store in order to resolve the economic problem caused by the Defendant’s retirement. The Plaintiff was in opposition of the Defendant, which led to a growing conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

8) On November 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) as the Plaintiff’s cell phone on November 17, 2013, “I would like to see the location of the Plaintiff’s cell phone as she was difficult to see so far; (b) two daughters and happyly.” (c) “I would like to see that I would like to get off the text message with the very hot water.” (d) “I sent out the text message with the content of her,” and (e) the Plaintiff reported to the police station and led the Plaintiff to track the location.

19) On December 2013, the Plaintiff moved to the Republic of Korea after going to the Republic of Korea. From that time, the Plaintiff was living separately from the Republic of Korea.

10) On January 9, 2014, the Defendant: (a) as the instant cell phone of DoD, the instant person’s cell phone, “licked with love son; (b) Hayna, first of all, Linna, Linna. Linna, Linna, Linna, Linna, Linna, Linna, Linna, and Linna, Linna, Linna, Linna, Lin

11) On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking divorce against the Defendant, etc., and on July 22, 2014, the Defendant filed the instant counterclaim seeking a preliminary division of property against the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 9, and 26 (including each number), and the whole pleading

chapter 6

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant does not want a divorce, but the plaintiff still desires a divorce even after the couple's counseling, and that the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has been broken down to the extent that it is difficult for the plaintiff to continue the marriage and forced the marital life, and that there was a lack of effort to communicate emotionally with the other party, and even if considering that there was a depression for both parties, the above failure of the marriage was the main cause of the defendant's excessive investment in shares and stress, and an excessive speech due to stress, suicide, etc., and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce has merit.

Furthermore, since the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has reached a failure due to the above reasons attributable to the defendant, and it is apparent that the plaintiff has suffered mental loss, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff. Considering the marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant, the circumstances leading up to the failure of the marriage, and the degree of liability for the failure of the marriage, it is reasonable to determine consolation money in KRW 10,00,000.

Therefore, the plaintiff is divorced from the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 10,00,00, and the damages for delay calculated with 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 7, 2014 to April 21, 2015, which is the day following the day on which the copy of the main complaint of this case was served on the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff, to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay calculated with 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination on the claim for division of property in preliminary counterclaim

A. Reasons for the formation and maintenance of the common property;

1) The Plaintiff was working in a national bank at the time of marriage, and retired on December 1, 2001, and thereafter, as the main father, the Plaintiff was in full charge of raising the principals of domestic affairs and the instant case.

2) The Defendant served in a stock company from married to 2010.

3) At the time of marriage of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was in the state of having registered the creation of a mortgage over the Housing and Commercial Bank with the maximum amount of debt 28, 600, 000, 000 won, and 47, 833, 520 won in addition to the above real estate, and the Plaintiff sold the above apartment around November 4, 2002, after holding shares of KRW 33,92, 923, 833, and 520 in addition to the above real estate.

4) The plaintiff and the defendant purchased on December 7, 2001 ** Dong ***************************** on May 19, 2009, sold on or around November 29, 2002 ****************** on the basis of the plaintiff. Sale on or around November 29, 2002 ************************ on* October 19, 2010.

5) On May 25, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List (hereinafter “the instant database”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on February 16, 2012. On February 8, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant officetel to FF for KRW 20,00,000,00,000, monthly rent 1,705,000 (including surcharges).

6) On October 27, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased real estate listed in the [Attachment 2] List (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on December 9, 201.

7) On December 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000, and leased real estate located in Suwon-gu, Busan.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 10 to 15, 17 to 28, and 31 (including each number);

As a result of this Court’s submission of financial transaction information to the National Bank, the entire pleadings

Purport

(b) Subjects of division of property;

1) The property subject to division of property following the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant is described in the separate sheet of the property subject to division (3).

2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the deposit of a national bank should be excluded from the property division, since it was withdrawn and repaid the existing debt, or most of the principal of the case’s child support and living expenses.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid a debt to be included in the subject of pro rata property portion by withdrawing the above deposit or paid a debt for a couple's communal living, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s loss of the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the victim on or before December 2013, immediately before the filing of the instant principal lawsuit, and the money that the Plaintiff incurred thereafter cannot be deemed to have been disbursed for the family life of the married couple. The Plaintiff separately claims against the Defendant for the child support of the deceased principal from January 6, 2014 (the expenses that the Plaintiff spent for the child support of the principal of the instant case will be ordered to pay to the Defendant with the child support of the principal of the instant case as follows).

In the end, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in the name of the Defendant, shares of 1 minute 2/1,00 of 2/1,00 of 1,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) should be included in the property division. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff should include 3/1,000 square meters of 1,00 square meters in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”).

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 16, the defendant, on July 23, 2010, may recognize the fact that on the same day, her mother received a donation of this private land from LeeG, and that he/she completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on the same day.

However, in light of the fact that the above land was donated to the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the marriage of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was substantially broken down, it is difficult to view the above land as a property jointly formed or maintained by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and rather, it is reasonable to view it as the Defendant’s unique property.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

4) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that if the instant officetel’s monthly income, separate from the instant officetel itself, is included in the pro rata property portion, it would be unfair for double account.

However, the property subject to division in the division of property at the time of judicial divorce and its amount should, in principle, be determined on the basis of the date of closing argument at the fact-finding court in a divorce lawsuit. The above monthly income was generated from the above officetels, which is the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the above officetels cannot be deemed as the sole ownership of the plaintiff. Thus, the above monthly income constitutes active property separate from the above officetels.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(c) Ratio and method of division of property;

1) Division ratio of property

In light of the fact that the income of the defendant was more than that of the plaintiff during the marriage period, that of the defendant, that of the defendant paid a considerable loss to a person who has contributed to the plaintiff's shares after retirement, that of the defendant responsible for raising the principal of the case and home affairs, that of the plaintiff in the future, the plaintiff raises the principal of the case in the future, as shown below, the actual marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant, the ratio of the plaintiff and the defendant's contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division of property, the circumstances leading up to the marriage and marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the age, health conditions, and economic ability of the plaintiff and the defendant, the division ratio of property division is determined to be 50%, and 50%

2) The method of division of property

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the type of the property subject to division, the current status of use, the current name and the process of acquisition, and the intent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc., the apartment of this case out of the property subject to division shall vest in the Defendant, and the remaining property subject to division shall vest in the Plaintiff in the name of the current owner, but it is appropriate to settle the difference in the amount that ultimately falls short of the amount to be reverted to the Defendant in accordance with

3) Property division amount to be paid additionally by the Plaintiff to the Defendant: 16,000,000 won

[Calculation Form] ① The Plaintiff’s share according to the division of property among the Plaintiff’s net property: 303, 876, 400 won

[ = 607, 752, 801 won x 50% x 50 won ] The sum of net property of the plaintiff and the defendant / the defendant / the sum of net property

(2) The amount calculated by deducting the value of the apartment in this case from the money in the above paragraph (1): 16, 376, 400 won

[ = 303, 876, 400 won - 287, 500, 000 won]

[3] Division of property that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff

② The amount set forth in the above paragraph 16,00,000 won less than the amount set forth in the above paragraph

(d) Sub-committee;

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the division of property with respect to the apartment of this case, and pay damages for delay calculated by 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment with respect to the registration of transfer of ownership based on the division of property.

3. Determination as to the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, child support, and visitation right

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

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the Plaintiff’s current custody of the principal of this case, and the fact that the principal of this case has a high degree of friendship with the principal of this case, the background of marriage and failure of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the age, gender, and parenting of the principal of this case, the intent of fostering the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the import and property status of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is reasonable to designate the Plaintiff as the person in parental authority and the custodian of the principal

(b) Child support;

As long as the Plaintiff was designated as a person with parental authority and a guardian of the principal of this case, the Defendant is obligated to share the child support as the child support for the principal of this case. In full view of the following circumstances: the age, health status, current living conditions and parenting conditions of the principal of this case; the details of the education received by the principal of this case; the age, position, economic ability, health status of the Plaintiff and the Defendant; the equitable burden; the details of the standard table for calculating the child support established and published by the Seoul Family Court; and the Plaintiff’s claim amount, etc., it is reasonable to determine the child support to be paid to the Plaintiff as KRW 50,000 per person of the principal of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the child support for the principal of this case, and after the Plaintiff started to raise the principal of this case independently, from October 6, 2014 to October 10, 200, the last day of the principal of this case, which is the date before the date when the principal of this case was served.

C. Interview (ex officio determination)

As long as the plaintiff has been designated as a person in parental authority and guardian of the principal of the case, the defendant, who is not a person in parental authority and guardian of the principal of the case, has the right to interview the principal of the case. In full view of the facts recognized earlier and the intentions of the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the visitation right, gender, living environment, present situation, etc. of the principal of the case, it is reasonable to determine the schedule and method of visitation right as stated in Paragraph 6 of this Article for the emotional stability and welfare of the principal of the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce against the principal lawsuit is accepted on the ground of the reasons, and only part of the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and it is decided as to division of property, designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, child support, and visitation right as above.

Judges Kim Jong-ok