2014ddy24644 (Divorce, etc.)

2015drid205044 (Counterclaim) Any counterclaim against a claim, such as a divorce.

KimA (************ 2***********)))

Busan Suwon-gu

Busan District Court Decision 201

Attorney Lee Do-young

Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Long-B (**************************))

Busan Suwon-gu

Busan District Court

Attorney Lee Do-young

January 26, 2016

February 16, 2016

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

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

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

1. Main elements;

Pursuant to the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) are divorced. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a solatium amounting to KRW 30 million, and pay 1/2 of the amount after the repayment of the loan of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet as a division of property.

2. Counterclaim;

The plaintiff shall be divorced by counterclaim and the defendant. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the consolation money of KRW 30 million and 20% per annum to the day of complete payment from the day following the day of service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff's division of property ** such *************'s name is changed to the defendant and the above *********.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

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

A. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant living together from around 2008, and reported the marriage on August 23, 2010, and, to the Defendant, there were childrenCC (19*, *. *. *. *.) between the former wife and the latter.

2) The Defendant had a lot of cases where the Plaintiff dices alcohol more than three times a week during marriage, dices alcohol more than three times a week at night, and fests the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also operated ** * as the Plaintiff was in operation, and there was frequent cases of drinking alcohol with the club people.

3) At around October 2013, the Defendant had re-contributed to the former without sufficient consultation with the Plaintiff. At that time, the Plaintiff and the headCC had the goods to the Plaintiff.

4) From November 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) conspiredd with Dadd and Ed and Ed and Ed and had sexual intercourses with Mad and Ed and Ed in December of the same year; (b) the Defendant, around the end of December of the same year, assaulted the Plaintiff while pursuing the above facts.

5) The Plaintiff and the Defendant used each side from around that time, and the Plaintiff refused the Defendant’s demand for gender relations.

6) Since 2014, the Plaintiff was friendly with Kim E-E, a guest who had been on his/her own operation, such as drinking frequently with Kim E-E.

7) On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) fluened and fluorddly performed drinking on a house with a terroman, such as KimE; (b) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, attempted to drive KimE; and (c) fluored the Plaintiff with a desire to drive the fluor; and (d) fluored the Plaintiff into the Plaintiff.

8) On October 20, 2014, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant prepared a letter to the effect that, for three months upon the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the foregoing paragraph (7) of the same Article, the Defendant spawned each use of alcohol, drinking alcohol, assault, verbal abuse, and injection would give consolation money and property 50% and divorce to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff’s recurrences. The Defendant received a certificate of approval from the law firm and gave the Plaintiff.

9) Even after the preparation of the above written statement, marital relations have not been improved, and the plaintiff was in office in November 2014, and the plaintiff and the defendant have been living separately from around that time.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each of Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6 to 8, and Eul evidence 9 (including each number)

- The family investigation report prepared by the family affairs investigator and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination

In addition to the above facts, considering that the Plaintiff and the Defendant sought divorce against the other party in this case, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s mistake, such as frequent drinking, late returning home, assault, etc., led to the failure of the road where it is difficult to continue the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the liability for the failure of the marriage is equal to both parties.

Therefore, since there are grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff's claim for divorce against the principal lawsuit and the defendant's claim for counterclaim divorce are reasonable, and both parties' claim for consolation money are without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim for division of property

A. Facts of recognition

1) The defendant operated a driving range during the marriage period, and the plaintiff also operated a driving range.

2) The Defendant purchased real estate in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) that was unsold in lots at the time of its mother’s purchase, including KRW 1330,700,000,000 and KRW 34,000,000, which was loaned from the Seocho-dong Saemaul Cooperative, from his mother, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name on August 12, 2013.

3) During the marriage period, the Defendant was taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s trade name *** Gu** Dong************ * * ‘’ ***** * * (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”). The Plaintiff did not make any profit or loss while operating the instant store.

4) The Plaintiff’s deposit for the lease of the instant store in the name of the Plaintiff was KRW 20 million, but the Plaintiff already transferred the instant store to another person upon receiving KRW 20 million after filing the instant lawsuit.

5) On March 19, 2015, the establishment registration of the instant apartment was completed on March 19, 2015, with respect to the new bank, the new bank, the maximum amount of 480,7200,000 won ( approximately KRW 43,000,000,000) for the right to collateral security, which was completed on August 12, 2013, the establishment registration of the mortgage was completed on March 23, 2015, the provisional attachment registration of KRW 7,780,000 was completed on the creditor F, the claimed amount of KRW 7,000,000,000,000,000 for the creditor assets management loan, the claimed amount of KRW 3,530,530,545,5305,000 for the creditor company on December 1, 2015.

6) The current market price of the apartment of this case is equivalent to KRW 590 million and KRW 7.5 million.

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap evidence 5, 9, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 (including each number)

- The family investigation report prepared by the family affairs investigator and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination

The above facts are as follows: (a) the acquisition amount of Art. 1, which can be deemed as the main positive property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, was fully borne by the Defendant; (b) the actual value was smaller than the amount that the Plaintiff received from his mother at the time of purchase of the above apartment; (c) the Plaintiff appears to have suffered considerable damages when operating the instant apartment; (d) the Defendant wishes to divide the property by the way of devolving each property according to the current name; (c) other factors such as the Plaintiff’s contribution to the formation and maintenance of each property; (d) the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s living and marriage failure; (e) the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, health status, economic ability, etc. were comprehensively taken into account, it is reasonable to view that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have positive and negative property between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, such as the Plaintiff’s loan debt 1 and 2 million won to GG; (e) the expected termination refund for each insurance purchased by the Plaintiff; and (e) the Defendant’s debt owed to the Defendant’s parents;

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property and the Defendant’s counterclaim for division of property are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce and the defendant's counterclaim for divorce are accepted for all reasons, and the plaintiff's claim for consolation money and division of property and the defendant's counterclaim for division of property are dismissed for all reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-ok