2014drid205528 Divorce, etc.

HongA (************ 2**********))

Busan Address

Seoul basic domicile

Attorney Lee Do-young

(********** 11**********))

Busan Address

Pyeongtaek-si in service place

reference domicile Gyeong-nam

2. PCC (********* 2*********)

Address Kim Jong-si

(**************************))

Busan Address

reference domicile Gyeong-nam

December 23, 2015

January 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff and defendant KimB are divorced.

2. The plaintiff shall be consolation money to the plaintiff:

A. Defendant KimB pays 30 million won and 5% per annum from February 10, 2015 to January 13, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

B. Defendant U.S.A. jointly with Defendant KimB, pays 15 million won out of the money set forth in the foregoing paragraph (a) and 5% per annum from April 16, 2015 to January 13, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims for consolation money against the defendants are dismissed, respectively.

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

5. Defendant KimB shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 500,000 per month from January 13, 2016 to December 7, 2031 as the child support for the principal of the case.

6. Defendant KimB may interview the principal of the case before the principal of the case becomes adult.

(a) schedule;

1) Second, fourth Saturday 14:00 to 19:00 the following day (including accommodation).

2) For the summer and winter vacation period after entrance to an elementary school: Five days for five-day determined by mutual agreement (from the first day to the last day: 00 to the 00).

3) No later than New Year’s Day: Two-day for each one-day designated by mutual consultation (from 0: 10 to 12:00 for the first day).

(b) Place: The place that the above defendant designates;

C. Method: The method by which the above defendant took the residence of the principal of the case back again;

D. The schedule set forth in the above paragraph (a) must be changed by subsequent consultation according to the schedule of the principal of the case, and shall be implemented with the maximum respect for the will of the deceased person.

E. The plaintiff shall not actively cooperate with the above defendant so that the visitation right can be achieved smoothly, and shall not interfere with this.

7. Of the litigation costs, 20% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

8.Paragraphs 2, 5, and 6 may be provisionally executed.

The defendants and paragraphs (1) and (4) of this Article and the plaintiff jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 30 million won consolation money and 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. Defendant KimB shall pay to the plaintiff 60,000 won per month from the date of the decision of this case to December 7, 2031 with the child support of the principal of this case.

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

A. Facts of recognition

1) On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant KimB obtained knowledge of around 2010, and began living together, and thereafter, they are legally married couple who completed a marriage report and the principal of the case between them.

2) Defendant KimB transferred part-time and daily labor, etc. without having a stable workplace due to a computer game, etc. during the period of living together and marriage, and neglected to housework and childcare.

3) During that period, the Defendants came to know through online games on October 2014, and began to offer an alternative system around that time.

4) On November 22, 2014, the Defendants were accommodated in the festuries of the French site. The Plaintiff confirmed it through the vehicle box image and asked Defendant KimB to do so. Defendant KimB went back on the following day.

5) On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff shown to Defendant KimB that “one to two months,” the Plaintiff would see the appearance of “one to two months.” However, Defendant KimB borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on the same day and lent the vehicle to Defendant Jung-B along with Defendant Jung-CC.

6) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 26, 2014, and Defendant KimB stated that the Plaintiff would be present on the first day of pleading on July 8, 2015, and that the Plaintiff would not want to get divorced from the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant established the Plaintiff’s telephone number after leaving the country to block the receipt of the Plaintiff’s phone number and failed to perform all the duty to support the Plaintiff and the principal of the case. The family investigation conducted by this court was conducted in good faith, such as the Plaintiff’s absence of contact on the designated date on which the Plaintiff appeared, and the Plaintiff’s phone investigator’s refusal to comply with the phone call.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap 1 or 8, family investigation report by family investigation officers, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) In full view of the above facts of recognition, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant KimB appears to have reached the failure to restore the trust of the couple due to the defendant KimB's mistake that destroyed the defendant KimB's father's trust. This constitutes grounds for divorce under Article 840 (1) and (6) of the Civil Code, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case is reasonable (where the defendant KimB treated the plaintiff unfairly, the plaintiff argued that there is a ground for divorce under Article 840 (3) of the Civil Code, but "when he was extremely maltreated by the spouse," which is the reason for divorce under Article 840 (3) of the Civil Code, the "if he was extremely maltreated by the defendant KimB's spouse" means the case where he was considered to be harsh to force the continuation of the marriage succession. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation of unfair treatment or the evidence that the plaintiff offered by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be the ground for divorce as above).

2) Since the fact that the marriage relationship with Defendant KimB caused a failure due to the Defendants’ wrongful act is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff was suffering from severe mental distress, the Defendants are obliged to pay back the Plaintiff’s emotional distress in money.

Furthermore, considering the Plaintiff’s age, the degree of the Defendants’ unlawful act, the developments leading up to and degree of responsibility for the failure of the above marriage, the duration of marriage and other circumstances revealed in the arguments, the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff is reasonable to set respectively as KRW 30 million in Defendant KimB, and KRW 15 million in the above amount.

Therefore, the Plaintiff and Defendant KimB shall be divorced, and the Plaintiff shall be consolation money; Defendant KimB shall be jointly with Defendant KimB; Defendant Jeong-B shall be jointly with Defendant KimB, and the amount of KRW 15 million out of the said amount; and Defendant KimB, the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as requested by the Plaintiff, shall be from February 10, 2015; Defendant Jung-B shall be paid 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 17, 2015 to January 13, 2016; and damages for delay calculated by Presidential Decree No. 3(1) of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 2515, Sep. 25, 2015).

2. Determination on designation of a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority, and visitation right in a claim for child support

A. Part of a claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian

Considering that the Plaintiff currently raises the principal of this case, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the Plaintiff is bringing up the principal of this case, the marriage and failure of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the age and parenting of the principal of this case, the intent of bringing up the Plaintiff, and the import and property status of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is reasonable to designate the Plaintiff as the person with parental authority and the person with custody of the principal of this case for the

B. Part of claim for child support

The defendant, as the father of the principal of this case and jointly assumes the responsibility for fostering the principal of this case, is obligated to pay part of the child support to the plaintiff designated as the fosterer of the principal of this case. Considering the following circumstances: the age, fostering situation of the principal of this case, the future expenses for fostering and educating the principal of this case as indicated in the records, and other various circumstances, including the plaintiff and the defendant's age, environment, economic ability, equity in burden, and child support calculation guidelines enacted and promulgated by the Seoul Family Court on May 30, 2014, it is reasonable to determine the amount of the child support to be borne by the defendant as KRW 50,000 per month. Accordingly, the defendant is reasonable to pay the child support to the plaintiff from January 13, 2016, which is the date of the decision of this case, to December 7, 2031, which is the date of the decision of this case, as the plaintiff seeks the child support of the principal of this case.

(c) Interview (ex officio determination).

As long as the Plaintiff was designated as a person with parental authority and guardian of the principal of this case, the Defendant, who was not a person with parental authority and guardian of the principal of this case, has the right to interview the principal of this case. In full view of the facts recognized earlier and the facts revealed in this case, it is reasonable to set the time and method of visitation right as described in paragraph (6) of this Article for the emotional stability and welfare of the principal of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and partial consolation money shall be accepted for the reasons, and the remaining claim for consolation money shall be dismissed for the reasons, and it shall be decided as above with regard to the designation of a person with parental authority and a person with custody, and child support.

Judges already appointed