In a case where Gap and Eul, who are a legal married couple, filed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim, such as mutual divorce, on the grounds of the accumulated complaints and conflicts during the marriage period, the case rejecting Gap's claim for divorce and consolation money as the responsible spouse, and accepting Eul's claim for divorce and consolation money on the grounds that Gap's claim for divorce and consolation money, are deemed to have caused an inappropriate relationship with Gap, such as the school system during the marriage period, in addition to accumulated complaints and conflicts between Gap and Eul during the marriage period, since the agreement between Gap and Eul were deemed to have caused an inappropriate relationship with Gap

It is a case where Gap and Eul, who are a legal married couple, have filed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim such as mutual divorce on the grounds of accumulated complaints and conflicts during the marriage period.

In light of the fact that Party A and Party B’s marital relationship appears to have been caused by an inappropriate cause for the relationship with Party A, such as the other side during the marriage period after the date of application for confirmation of intention of divorce, and generally, during the conflict between husband and wife, it is the time for efforts to recover the marital relationship with the time of serious concern about maintaining the marital relationship. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the agreement between Party A and Party B also constitutes an unlawful act that interferes with the maintenance of marital relationship and damages other party’s trust, barring any special circumstance, and Party A and Party B’s marital relationship seems to have been caused by an inappropriate cause for the relationship with Party A, such as the other side during the marriage period, in addition to the accumulated complaints and conflicts between Party A and Party B during the marriage period, and thus, Party A and Party B’s claim for divorce and consolation money and consolation money.

Articles 806, 840 subparag. 1 and 6, and 843 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) (Law Firm Maritime Law, Attorney So-supon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Law Firm L&W, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-appellant)

Principal 1 et al.

October 18, 2019

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall be divorced by counterclaim.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 10 million won consolation money and 5% per annum from August 8, 2019 to February 14, 2020, and 12% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim for divorce and consolation money and the counterclaim of the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) are dismissed, respectively.

4. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the amount of KRW 70,000,000 as division of property and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5. Designation of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case.

6. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

A. 15,000,000 won shall be paid for the past rearing expenses of the principal of the case;

B. From February 2020 to February 2020, the principal of this case shall pay 50,000 won per capita of the principal of this case at the end of each month until the principal of this case reaches his majority.

7. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is entitled to contact with the principal of the case as follows:

(a) schedule;

1. On two occasions a month: Secondly, each month, from 10:00 to 19:00 of Sundays 19:00 (one day every two days); and

2) In addition, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) consult about the possibility of visitation, time, place, method of delivery, etc. by no later than two days before the maturity, and may change the above schedule or conduct further visitation rights in addition to the above schedule upon consultation.

3) The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) should first consider the situation, health, etc. of the principal of the case in planning and holding the visitation right.

(b) Place: A place where the plaintiff may be responsible for him;

(c) Method of delivery: The method by which the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) receives the principal of the case from a place determined in consultation with the residence of the principal of the case or the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and then takes them back to the same place after completing the visitation right;

D. The duty of permission: the Defendant (Counterclaim) shall actively cooperate with the Defendant (Counterclaim) so that the visitation right can be smoothly conducted, and shall not interfere with this.

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

9. Paragraphs 2 and 6 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

○ Main Action: as stated in attached Form 1.

○ Counterclaim: The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) 30 million won consolation money with 12% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment, 21,778,136 won as division of property, and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of this judgment to the day of complete payment. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 36 million as the past rearing expenses of the principal of this case. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant for the future rearing expenses, and the principal of this case shall pay KRW 1 million per capita at the end of each month from the day of this judgment to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant completed a marriage report on August 22, 2006 and have the case principal under the law.

B. During the marriage period, the Defendant earned income while running a construction business, and the Plaintiff was in exclusive charge of raising the household affairs and children as the occupational father, and served as an elementary school after-school teacher from September 201, 201.

C. Around 2013, the Plaintiff joined a golf club with the Defendant. Around that time, upon receiving a request from a male member of the same club to purchase a letter of demand on behalf of golf, the Plaintiff purchased it and was found guilty of fraudulent acts by the Defendant discovered that he left the back of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Upon the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant retired from club activities, and the Defendant tried to control the Plaintiff’s external activities while supervising the Plaintiff’s external activities.

D. Around September 2016, the Plaintiff began to engage in the activities of the Edrid club with the Defendant’s consent. However, as the Plaintiff had frequently gone beyond 10 cc at night, which is the time of returning home as promised by the Plaintiff, and caused the Edialton movement at low level, the Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the Plaintiff, demanded a divorce on January 1, 2018. The Plaintiff demanded a divorce rather than the Plaintiff’s refusal, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an application for confirmation of the intention of divorce with this court around February 14, 2018.

E. Meanwhile, from the end of Jan. 2018 or from the beginning of Feb. 2018, the Plaintiff began to individually visit Nonparty 1, who was the Chairperson of the Eddminton club. Around Mar. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff viewed Nonparty 1 as only Nonparty 1, and even around Mar. 13, 2018, the Plaintiff viewed the Edminian performance, and was accompanied by Nonparty 1 when finding an attorney’s office to consult on legal issues, such as divorce with the Defendant.

F. The Defendant had access to the Plaintiff’s SNS account and came to know of the relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1. On March 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a written statement to the effect that the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 committed an unlawful act by putting members of the Madton Association on the group Kakao room. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 filed a complaint against the Defendant as a suspicion of defamation, etc., and the suspicion against the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million.

G. On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff left a house around April 4, 2018 and was living separately with the Defendant from that time.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, 11 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 6, 18, and 20, investigation report or video of family affairs investigators, investigation report on the preparation of family affairs investigators, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for divorce and consolation money against each principal lawsuit and counterclaim

(a) A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim divorce: Dismissal of the principal lawsuit (the spouse of the principal lawsuit), and acceptance of the counterclaim (Article 840 subparag. 1, 6 of the Civil Act);

(b) Claim for consolation money for the principal lawsuit and counterclaim: Dismissal of the principal lawsuit and partial acceptance of the counterclaim (the foregoing data shall be KRW 10 million and the damages for delay)

【Reasons for Determination】

○ Recognition of the failure of marriage: Taking into account various circumstances shown in the arguments, such as the details and degree of conflict between husband and wife, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s separate status from April 2018, seeking a divorce by the principal lawsuit of this case and the counterclaim.

The principal responsibility of ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) is not to specify the accurate date on which the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 started to associate with, but at least, the Plaintiff also acknowledges that the restriction of the Plaintiff was made during the deliberation period after the date of application for confirmation of intention of divorce. Generally, in the process of conflict between husband and wife, the time of efforts to recover the marital relationship in a serious concern about the maintenance of the marital relationship. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the agreement between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 is also an improper act that obstructs the maintenance of the marital relationship and damages the other party’s trust. Furthermore, in light of the increased number of conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 appears to have a significant impact on the failure of the marital relationship in this case. Meanwhile, in addition to the Plaintiff’s understanding of the Plaintiff’s position during the marriage period and making positive efforts on the difference of position during the marriage period, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 attempted to criticize and control the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s fault and the Defendant’s liability were more inappropriate.

The amount of consolation money: The amount of consolation money to be paid to the defendant by the plaintiff shall be determined as KRW 10 million, taking into consideration the circumstances shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances surrounding the failure of marriage and the degree of responsibility, the marriage period, age, occupation and economic power of the plaintiff and the defendant.

C. Sub-committee

1) The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced by counterclaim.

2) The Plaintiff’s claim for divorce and consolation money, who is the responsible spouse, is dismissed as there is no ground.

3) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is the date of the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case, to the Defendant from August 8, 2019, which is the day after August 8, 2019, which is the day after the date of the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case.

3. Determination on each claim for division of property against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. Property and value to be divided: The reference point for calculating the value of the property to be divided shall be determined as the date of closing of argument in this case, in principle, and any financial property which is easy to consume or conceal shall be determined on April 4, 2018, which is the date when the plaintiff and the defendant move separately, and shall be recognized as it is, unless there are special circumstances, as to the value indicated in the order to submit the financial transaction information or written by the defendant, etc., consistent with the plaintiff and the defendant, except where the value is less than 10,000 won.

(b)non-containing property;

1) The Plaintiff’s deposit claim: The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s deposit claim reaches KRW 15,068,245. However, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in light of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 20 and the result of the instant court’s order to submit each financial transaction to ○○ Bank and △△△△△△△△△△△△, it is recognized that the sum of various insurance and fund termination refunds, etc. that the Plaintiff terminated before and after the date of the marriage failure was appropriated for part of the Plaintiff’s current deposit for the current deposit for the present place of residence. As long as the deposit is included in the Plaintiff’s active property, it cannot be reflected in the Plaintiff’s property with the above KRW 15,00,000 in duplicate. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) The Defendant’s mother’s obligation to loan KRW 100 million to Nonparty 2: from June 2017 to May 2018, the Defendant was awarded a contract for construction of △△ Building in Busan Gangseo-gu ( Address omitted) and △△△ Building located in Busan Gangseo-gu. The Defendant asserted to the effect that, despite having to pay approximately KRW 90 million for labor cost on July 31, 2017, the payment for the completed portion received is approximately KRW 67 million and was appropriated for lending KRW 100 million from Nonparty 2. However, the Defendant’s assertion that, even if the Defendant’s assertion was made, the amount deposited in the name of Nonparty 2 was KRW 94 million, not KRW 100,000,000, KRW 2300,000 and KRW 500,000,000 were not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid for the remainder of KRW 150,500,000,000.

3) The Defendant’s respective loan obligations of KRW 69 million on March 23, 2018 and KRW 35 million on March 27, 2018: around June 2017, the Defendant provided a subcontract to Nonparty 3 for part of the contracted construction to Nonparty 3; on March 23, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 70 million to Nonparty 3 on the loan account of KRW 75 million from the above bank to Nonparty 40 million; on March 27, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 80,000 to Nonparty 4, a material business operator, who received KRW 35 million on the above loan from Nonparty 1, who received KRW 70,000,000,000 from Nonparty 4, who received KRW 75 million on March 27, 2018, and there seems to be no reason to acknowledge that the Defendant received KRW 35,500,000 from Nonparty 2, a material business operator, from around 708.

4) 피고의 ▽▽▽▽보험(어린이보험) 예상환급금 2건 및 ◎◎◎◎◎◎◎보험 예상환급금 2건: 이 법원의 ▽▽▽▽보험 및 ◎◎◎◎◎◎◎보험에 대한 각 금융거래정보제출명령 결과에 의하면, 위 각 보험계약은 혼인파탄일을 전후하여 체결된 것으로서 원고의 기여도를 인정하기 어렵다. 피고의 적극재산에서 제외한다.

(c) The ratio and method of division of property;

1) Division ratio of property: Plaintiff 40%, Defendant 60%

[Ground for determination] The original defendant's age, occupation, process and duration of marital life, degree of contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division, and various circumstances shown in the pleadings, including the defendant's bringing up the principal of the case, as seen below

2) The method of division of property: The active and small property under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall vest in each person in the name of the respective property, taking into account the name and form of the property subject to division, the details of acquisition, convenience of division, current status of use, etc.

(c) Money division of property: 70,000,000 won (which shall be the amount calculated by deducting the difference that is calculated below):

【Calculation Form】

① The Plaintiff’s share according to the division of property among the net property of the Plaintiff and Defendant: 105,306,767 won.

(i) The sum of net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 263,266,919 x 40% x the sum of net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant

② The difference between the Plaintiff’s net property and the amount described in paragraph (1): KRW 70,577,879

(i) 105,306,767 - 34,728,888

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 70,000,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. Determination on claims such as designation of a person with parental authority or a person with parental authority and a child support, etc.

(a) Person with parental authority and child care: Designation of a defendant;

[Grounds for Determination] The age and gender of the principal of the case, current status of custody, environment of the plaintiff and the defendant, intent of the parties, etc.

B. Child support: 50,000 won per person per month of the child support of the principal of the case, taking into account the various circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the age and status of the principal of the case, the age, occupation, income, and living capacity of the plaintiff and the defendant, the guidelines for calculating the child support publicly announced by the Seoul Family Court, and the intention of the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant the child support of the principal of the case at the end of each month, 5,000 won per month (the part of the child support which was not paid as 1,00,000 won per month from April to January 2020), as the future child support expense, from February 2020 to the time the principal of the case reaches each adult age.

C. Interview: Unless it is contrary to the welfare of the principal of the case, a non-nive parent has the right to interview the principal of the case and the visitation right. In full view of the parties' age, the situation of fostering, and the intent of the visitation right, the visitation right shall be determined as to the visitation right as stated in Paragraph 7 of the Disposition.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim for a divorce is accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the counterclaim claim is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed on the ground of the reasons. The plaintiff's claim for divorce and consolation money against the principal lawsuit is dismissed on the ground of the reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition as to the division of property, designation of person with parental authority and custody, child support and visitation right claim

[Separate Notice] Claim: omitted

[Attachment] List of Divided Property: Omitted

Judges Jeong-il