2017dago9066 Divorce and consolation money, etc.

A

Section B.

April 18, 2018

May 30, 2018

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The Defendant: (a) paid consolation money in KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) from September 22, 2017 to May 30, 2018, respectively.

It shall pay 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment.

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

4. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 34 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

6. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Paragraph (1) of this case and the defendant shall serve the plaintiff with consolation money of KRW 30 million and the plaintiff with the complaint of this case.

5% per annum from the following day to the date of this judgment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

D. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying their respective rates to the division of property of KRW 277,203,572 and the amount so paid.

The interest rate of 15% per annum shall be paid from the day this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money

A. Recognizing the facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff married between 1 and 20 on September 21, 1995, and the judgment of divorce became final and conclusive on July 14, 2015, and divorced. On July 10, 2008, the Defendant came to know that (2) the Plaintiff had resided in the same apartment complex around 2009, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was found to have been her baby and the Defendant’s home. (3) The Defendant was 100 children to prepare for a police officer examination, and the Plaintiff was able to report her face to the Plaintiff on May 7, 2017, 207, and the Defendant was issued with the Plaintiff on July 1, 207, 2007, on which the Plaintiff was aware of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s body and the Defendant’s body, and the Plaintiff was issued with the Plaintiff on July 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 11, Gap evidence No. 17, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 11, and the whole purport of oral argument

B. Determination

(1) The failure of a matrimonial relationship: (1) In light of the following: (3) the Plaintiff sought a divorce with the Defendant by the instant lawsuit; (3) the Defendant also wishes to divorce; and (4) the Plaintiff and the Defendant have no intention or intent to recover the marital relationship, the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has been no longer reached to the extent that it is difficult to recover. (2) The Defendant’s liability for the marriage dissolution was more serious: (3) the Defendant committed an unlawful act with another woman; (4) the Plaintiff did not make efforts to recover the marital relationship with the Plaintiff by making the commission of an unlawful act; and (3) the Plaintiff did not make efforts to recover the marital relationship with the Plaintiff sufficiently after the occurrence of the unlawful act; and (4) the Plaintiff committed multiple assaults, the Defendant is deemed to be more liable for the marriage dissolution. The amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 15 million,000,000,000, in consideration of various circumstances indicated in the pleadings in the instant case, such as the circumstance and degree of the breakdown of marriage;

C. Sub-committee

The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced from the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 15 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from September 22, 2017 to May 30, 2018, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) the existence of a de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant;

From the end of 2009, the Plaintiff maintained de facto marriage and legal marriage with the Defendant, friends the Defendant, and sees the Defendant’s family. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that division of property should be calculated by calculating the Plaintiff’s contribution and division of property in consideration of such circumstances.

The following facts are acknowledged by Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7-3, Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 16-1, Eul evidence 22, the financial transaction information reply meeting, the fact inquiry inquiry meeting of Busan Gangseo Police Station, and the whole purport of oral argument. The plaintiff living together with the plaintiff for a long time after the end of the time of the time of the oral argument, the defendant's being investigated into the case of assaulting the plaintiff on August 14, 2015 and called "the living relationship currently living together with the police", "the plaintiff was called as "the age of living", "the card chains of the plaintiff's credit card 16-1, and 22, the plaintiff's spouse's domicile on July 25, 2016, the plaintiff's moving-in report was made to the plaintiff's spouse on his domicile, and the defendant's moving-in report was made to the plaintiff's spouse on July 26, 2016, and the plaintiff's moving-in report was made to the plaintiff's spouse.

However, on the other hand, evidence of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, 9, and 10-1, and evidence Nos. 13-2, and evidence Nos. 13-9 are acknowledged by the whole purport of pleadings, namely, the assault case on August 14, 2015, which occurred when the defendant demanded that the plaintiff correct the relationship and demand the return of loans of KRW 10,000,000,000, and the plaintiff demanded the return of the relationship. The plaintiff had a different domicile on the plaintiff and the defendant's resident registration after the divorce between the plaintiff and the former, and the plaintiff had a different domicile on May 2016. Considering the above facts, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff had an objective concept of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant from around 209 to the point of view that the plaintiff was living together with the defendant's mother on his resident registration in Gangseo-gu, Busan, the defendant's residential life on his resident registration from around 2012.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that a de facto marriage was in a de facto marital relationship is difficult to accept.

B. Property and value subject to division: (a) it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was in de facto marital relationship from the end of the end of 2009, the period for which the Plaintiff and the Defendant reported marriage on March 9, 2017, or from July 25, 2016, the time when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit from around July 2017, the time when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit; (b) there is no details that the Plaintiff jointly managed the cost of living; and (c) there is no details that the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly managed the income and expenditure during this period; and (d) it is not recognized that there was property that the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly formed and maintained during the marriage period, in addition to the compensation for expropriation of the Busan Gangseo-gu housing, which is subject to division of property for the following reasons.

According to Gap evidence No. 7-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 10, Eul evidence Nos. 10, and each fact-finding inquiry by the Korea Water Resources Corporation, the defendant succeeded to the land of Gangseo-gu Busan on April 15, 201 and constructed the housing on September 13, 2012 on the above ground; the Korea Water Resources Corporation paid 129,914,400 won to the defendant on July 21, 2016 as the compensation for expropriation of the above housing; the amount of KRW 171,684,00 as the compensation for expropriation of the above housing; the plaintiff and the defendant decided to pay the above amount of KRW 171,684,00 as the compensation for expropriation; the plaintiff's domicile on July 25, 2016 as the plaintiff's domicile and completed the move-in report at his domicile on July 25, 2016.

It is recognized that the Plaintiff could not exercise the right to preferential payment at the time of the successful bid and could not recover KRW 40 million from the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff was a move-in report to the said house, the Defendant is deemed to be entitled to receive KRW 171,684,00 as the compensation for the accommodation of the said house. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the compensation for the accommodation of the said house is a property jointly formed and maintained by the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the marriage and is subject to division of property.

C. Division ratio and method (1) division ratio: Plaintiff 20%, Defendant 80%

[Ground of determination] The Plaintiff’s completion of the move-in report to Busan Gangseo-gu seems to have had an impact on the calculation of the compensation to be received by the Defendant; the Plaintiff failed to recover KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000, which was leased by the Plaintiff upon the move-in report to the domicile at the address of Busan, which was the case where the Plaintiff was successful; since it was incurred in the process of communal living as the Defendant and the married couple, it is reasonable to compensate for the damages. In addition, it is determined as above by taking into account such various circumstances as the process of acquisition and utilization of the active property subject to division, the degree of contribution by the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the formation and maintenance thereof, the age, occupation, process

(2) Property division amount that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff

[Calculation Form] ① The share of Plaintiff according to the division of property among the value of the property subject to division

171, 684, 00 won 20% = 34,336,80 won

② Division of property that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff

① The amount set forth in the above paragraph is less than 30 million won.

D. Sub-committee

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified, and the claim for consolation money is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed as there is no ground, and the claim for division of property shall be determined as above.

Judges Yoon Jae-nam