Plaintiff (Law Firm Hyeong, Attorneys Cho Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Principal of the case

December 8, 2010

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 17,077,983 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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

4. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 700,000 each month from January 12, 201 to the date before the principal of the case reaches the age of majority as the child support of the principal of the case at the end of each month.

5. A. The defendant may, every month, visit the principal of the case from 10:00 of the fourth Saturday to 17:00 of the following day at a place where the defendant may be responsible, and the interview may be held for 6:7 days in summer and wintering, respectively, during the summer and wintering period, and the interview may be held in the entrance form and graduation form.

B. The snow and tin shall alternately send the principal of the case and time to both parties.

C. The Plaintiff actively cooperates in the smooth exercise of visitation rights.

6. The plaintiff's claim for consolation money is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff shall be divorced with the defendant. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 46,124,569 won as division of property, and 20% interest per annum from the day after the judgment became final to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a guardian for the principal of this case. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,00,000 won for the child support of the principal of this case to the day when the principal of this case reaches the majority.

1. Basic facts

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, the plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who reported marriage on November 30, 2006, and have the principal of the case between them.

2. Determination on the claim for divorce

According to the evidence Nos. 4-1 and 7-1 to 8, and the purport of the report of investigation prepared by the family affairs investigator, the defendant unilaterally and without having reached an agreement with the plaintiff and his family members on the following day of 0 days: (1) where there is a dispute with the plaintiff during the marriage period, or there is a crym or verbal abuse, such as "Chos", "unsy," and "Symna," and the plaintiff's parents, "Symna," and "Symna," and (2) since the plaintiff's mother and the defendant's child support was 1 to 0 days before the plaintiff's mother and the defendant's child support was 0 days after 10 days after 10 days after 20 days after 20 days after 10 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 3 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after the plaintiff'sy.

Considering the circumstance and degree of conflict between the couple who appeared in the above recognition facts, and the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant did not present their efforts to recover the marital relationship in the course of the argument in this case, it is reasonable to view that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant reached the failure to recover any longer.

In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s marriage caused such failure, based on the understanding and consideration of the Defendant, did not make sufficient efforts to resolve the misunderstanding or conflicts through dialogue and concession, and only caused the Plaintiff’s fault with the principal of the instant case to make it difficult to recover the marriage difficult, and the Plaintiff’s mistake and the Plaintiff’s personal respect should be based on the marriage relationship, and the Plaintiff’s parent as well as the Plaintiff’s parents have repeatedly increased the conflict by verbal abuse and an exceptional attitude toward the Plaintiff’s parents, and further, the Defendant’s fault that aggravated the conflict by stimulated the Plaintiff by unilaterally not paying the child support for the principal of the instant case agreed at the mediation date during the separate period.

Thus, this constitutes grounds for divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified.

3. Determination on the claim of consolation money

The plaintiff asserts that the marriage was caused by the failure of due to the cause attributable to the defendant, and sought a payment of 30 million won as consolation money. However, as seen above, the plaintiff and the defendant's marriage were caused by the cause attributable to both parties of the marriage, and the degree of liability is equal, so the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is without merit.

4. Determination on the claim for division of property

(a) Property to be divided: Each property indicated in the detailed statement on the attached division of property;

(b) Value of the property to be divided: Value of each property indicated in the attached details of division of property;

(c) Method and rate of division of property;

(1) Circumstances to be considered

① The Defendant maintained his livelihood with the Defendant’s annual income in 2008, the Defendant’s annual income in 2008, the Defendant’s annual income in 2009, and the Defendant’s annual income in 56 million won, and the Plaintiff was a professional employer after the Defendant’s marriage with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff began to work as a store manager since April 2009, and began to work as a community life in a house with the lease deposit amounting to 45 million won. ③ The Plaintiff and the Defendant appropriated the above deposit with the money and bank loans deposited before marriage, etc. The Defendant appropriated the lease deposit with the Defendant, and then received 60 million won from the bank during the process of making the lease deposit into an apartment house with the lease deposit amounting to 100 million won. ④ The Defendant’s income was repaid for the Defendant’s income, ④ The period of marriage, convenience in division of property, and other various circumstances indicated in the instant pleadings, etc.

[Grounds for Recognition: Descriptions No. 3-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 3-2, entry of the investigation report prepared by family affairs investigator, inquiry results of this court's domestic bank, purport of the whole pleadings]

(2) The method of division of property: Property to be divided shall belong to the title holder as it is, and the defendant, who holds a larger net property, shall settle the difference between the plaintiff's share according to the division ratio of property and the net property owned by the plaintiff in cash.

(3) Division ratio: Plaintiff 30%, Defendant 70%

(4) Property division amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: 17,077,983 won

(1) The Plaintiff’s share according to the ratio of division of property: 24,169,245 won (=80,564,151 won total of net property x 30%)

② Amount obtained by deducting net property owned by the Plaintiff in the foregoing paragraph (i) (=24,169,245 won - 7,091,262 won)

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 17,077,983 won as division of property and the interest rate of 5% per annum from the day after the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day after full payment is made (the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, but the claim for division of property due to divorce cannot be deemed to have specifically occurred since the scope and contents of the claim for division of property is unclear and uncertain until the specific contents are formed by a trial. Thus, where a court issues an order to pay money as division of property at the same time as divorce, it shall be held liable for delay of payment as to the monetary payment obligation from the day after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 201Meu725, Sept. 25, 2001

5. Determination on a request for designation of a person with parental authority or custodian

Considering the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the marital life and the situation of failure of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age and gender of the principal of this case, and the custody situation of the principal of this case until the closing of argument, it is reasonable to designate the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and custodian for the principal of this case.

6. Determination on claims for child support

As long as the plaintiff has been designated as the supporter of the principal of this case, the defendant is obligated to share the child support for the principal of this case as the father of the principal of this case. Considering the age, age, age, income and property of the plaintiff and the defendant of this case, and other circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case, it is reasonable to determine the child support for the principal of this case to be borne by the defendant as KRW 70,000 per month

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 70,000 won per month from January 12, 201, which is the date of this decision, to the day before the principal of this case reaches the age of majority, as the plaintiff seeks to pay the child support of the principal of this case to the plaintiff at the end of each month.

7. Ex officio determination of visitation right

As long as the Plaintiff was designated as a custodian of the principal of this case, the Defendant, a non-nicker, has the right to interview the principal of this case. In full view of the age and educational status of the principal of this case, the living environment and parenting conditions of the principal of this case, and other various circumstances revealed in the oral argument of this case, setting the frequency, time, method, etc. of visitation rights as stated in Paragraph 5 of this case is reasonable for the emotional stability and welfare of the principal

8. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for divorce is accepted on the ground of the reason, and the claim for division of property, the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a person with custody, the claim for child support, and the visitation right shall be determined as above, and the claim for consolation money shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-young