Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Byung-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The principal of the case (Attorney Park Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 6, 2005

Seoul Family Court Decision 2002Dhap7244 delivered on June 2, 2004

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the request for designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian added in the trial are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. Property division shall be 170 million won to the day of full payment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day of the judgment of the court of the first instance to the day of full payment. The defendant shall be appointed as the person in parental authority and the guardian of the principal of this case. The plaintiff shall designate the defendant from the next day of the judgment of the court of the first instance. The plaintiff shall, first, from the next day of the judgment of the court of the first instance, contact the principal of this case at the place desired by the plaintiff from the 14th day to the next day of the Saturday and the 19th day after the next day from the next day of the judgment of the court of first instance, and from the

1. Basic facts

The following facts are the following facts: Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-1 to 6-1 to 9, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 10-1 to 4, Gap evidence 11-1 to 12, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10-1 to 4, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12-1 to 13, Eul evidence 14, 15, 17 through 20, Eul evidence 26-1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 30, Eul evidence 10-1 to 4, Eul evidence 12-1, Eul evidence 13, 14, 15, Eul evidence 17 through 20, Eul evidence 26-1, Eul evidence 30, testimony and video of Hongnam witness and family affairs investigation report prepared by the first instance court.

(a) Marriage, economic activities and residential relations;

(1) The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who reported the marriage on November 25, 1994, after having her husband and wife at her husband and wife at her husband and on October 2, 1994, and have the principal of the case under the chain.

(2) The plaintiff and the defendant began to live a new marriage in Seoul (detailed address omitted) prepared by the defendant. After marriage, the plaintiff is an art instructor of the Arts High School, and the defendant is serving as a researcher of the Communications Company.

B. The defendant's mother and the plaintiff's mother's involvement in the marital life

(1) The Defendant is the sole type of the Defendant’s mother’s mother as a single-child (unborn baby). The Defendant’s mother, who was an elementary school teacher (e.g., the retirement age was retired at the end of August 1999), was divorced after the Plaintiff gave birth to the principal of the case on August 2, 1996, and was divorced. The Plaintiff is a four-year woman.

(2) Although the Defendant’s mother did not live together with the Defendant’s mother, it was demanded that the Plaintiff make a daily phone call, the confirmation and check by the day of the Plaintiff’s own face-to-face or the Defendant’s daily life, such as the Plaintiff’s meals or soon-to-faces, etc., and forced the Defendant to make a well-being even by telephone communications. On the other hand, the time and method up to the time and method up to the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband and the Defendant’s marital relationship and the delivery relationship. If the Plaintiff demanded to put the Plaintiff’s home with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s wife’s letter of credit, the Defendant pointed out the Plaintiff’s gold season and matters to be observed, and even if the Plaintiff’s name may affect the Plaintiff’s future, thereby changing the Plaintiff’s name.

(3) The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the excessive interest of the Defendant mother, appealed to the Defendant, but the Defendant, while defending the Defendant mother, made the Plaintiff a tree or transferred the Plaintiff’s complaint to the Defendant mother as it is, thereby making the Plaintiff be faced with.

(4) Meanwhile, at the time when the Plaintiff gives birth to the principal of this case and takes a postnatal care in her friendly relationship, the Plaintiff gave birth to the principal of this case to the Defendant by revealing counter-defluences to the Defendant’s mother rather than the Plaintiff’s mother to the Plaintiff’s mother, and thus, the Defendant’s complaint was raised to the Defendant by revealing counter-defluences to the Defendant’s mother. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was willing to include the Plaintiff’s behavior in relation to the Plaintiff’s mother’s behavior at least twice a year.

(5) 위와 같은 잠재된 불만 속에 어버이날을 하루 앞둔 1997. 5. 7. 원·피고는 우선 피고 모를 뵙고 원고의 친정으로 갔는데, 원고가 원고 모의 의견에 따라 며칠 간 쉬고 오겠다면서 갑자기 귀가를 거부하여 피고는 혼자서 집으로 돌아오게 되었다. 이러한 사실을 알게 된 피고 모는 원고에게 전화하여 거친 욕설로 불만을 표시하는 한편 서둘러 귀가한 원고에게 장시간 훈계하였으며, 원고 모도 피고 모의 태도에 거부감을 갖게 되었다.

(6) Ultimately, around July 197, the principal's stone was placed in front of the Plaintiff's mother and the Defendant's mother in order to resolve misunderstandings, but rather, the excessive conflict between the Plaintiff's mother and the Defendant's mother led to an excessive conflict of self-esteem, which led to the development of a situation where the Plaintiff's desire to see the Plaintiff's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son

(7) Since 1998, the Defendant mother prepared rice tea on the birth day of the principal of this case and contacted the aged in the pelpel Park. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff mother were criticized due to the Defendant’s acts committed against the Defendant’s mother.

C. The defendant's Daejeon

(1) After that, on March 199, the Defendant’s work place was issued as Daejeon but the Plaintiff’s mother opposed to the Plaintiff’s Daejeon, which is likely to be far away from her friendship and work, and only the Defendant was living in a dormitory during which the Defendant was lowered to Daejeon and was living in Seoul at the weekend.

(2) Around 2000, the Plaintiff, at the home of the head of the original party, had a woman living at the home of the head of the original party, who was living at the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the household. The Defendant mother, who became aware of such fact, came to show the Plaintiff’s female mother at the home of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch, and accordingly, led the Plaintiff to feel that the Defendant

(3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, while ging a new house, attempted only the head of the house in full-time from May 2001 to the point of time when the Plaintiff’s mother and the Defendant’s mother were involved in this process and had conflicting opinions. During that process, the Defendant’s mother was revealed to the effect that the Defendant’s mother will support KRW 100 million. However, the Plaintiff, who did not know the house at the time when the house value was set back, did not take the responsibility that only the head of the house did not have sexual intercourse with the Defendant.

(4) 그러던 중 2001. 9. 21. 벌초를 앞두고 피고 모가 원고에게 전화를 하여 제상에 올릴 과일을 큰 것으로 사오라고 하였는데, 원고가 자신을 초등학생으로 아느냐면서 무례하게 반응하고 소리를 지르면서 언쟁이 발생하였고, 원고는 일방적으로 전화를 끊는 한편 즉시 피고에게 전화하여 피고 모와의 언쟁과 그에 대한 불만을 표출하였고, 원고 모에게도 불만을 하소연하였다. 곧바로 서울로 올라와 함께 축제에도 가고 영화도 관람한 피고의 노력에 의해 원고의 기분이 진정된 가운에 원·피고가 귀가하였지만, 원·피고의 집에 이미 와있던 원고 모는 언짢은 표정을 역력하게 나타냈고, 이러한 원고 모의 모습을 본 원고가 갑자기 피고에게 이혼하겠다고 하여 피고를 당황하게 하였다.

D. The plaintiff's home establishment

(1) Thereafter, on November 2001, the Plaintiff prepared a divorce report and demanded a continuous divorce to the Defendant. The Plaintiff made efforts by each other, while consenting to the Defendant’s proposal, demanded that a large number of letters be delivered or transferred the name of the house. On November 15, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased a car without any doubt with the Defendant.

(2) On the other hand, around March 2002, the defendant confirmed that more money was withdrawn from the passbook in the name of the defendant used for the living costs through the Internet inquiry conference than usuals, and that 4,000,000 won was deposited in the passbook in the name of the plaintiff for the purpose of savings all at once, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to issue an order of harm to the plaintiff. On this issue, the plaintiff did not show the passbook in the name of the defendant and did not disclose the purpose of use properly, and the plaintiff did not rather make a back investigation or disclose it to the defendant, and the defendant dumpeded in the process.

(3) On May 30, 2002, when the condition of the air condition of the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued, the Plaintiff’s mother made a late phone call to the Defendant in Daejeon, thereby making the Plaintiff difficult to get the Plaintiff to proceed with the divorce. Around May 30, 2002, the Plaintiff’s mother made an expression of intention to divorce as desired by the Defendant who did not go to the excessive flag and the flag.

(4) On June 1, 2002, the Plaintiff had already been issued a certified copy of family register, a certified copy of resident registration, and withdrawn from the deposit, etc., and had the Defendant prepared for divorce. On June 1, 2002, the Plaintiff saw the Defendant’s response by inducing the Defendant’s answer while attempting to record a preparatory tape recorder, leading the Defendant to use a commercial term or asking the Defendant’s refusal to hear, and led the Defendant to stimulate the Defendant. The Defendant interested also discussed the divorce, and prepared an application for confirmation of divorce at the Plaintiff’s request. During this process, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a multi-softed account, etc., due to physical collision, was friendly with the principal of the new wall case following the day.

E. The situation during the instant lawsuit

(1) On June 18, 2002, the Plaintiff, from the home, filed the instant lawsuit, and purchased deposits, bank loans, and subsidies from the Plaintiff’s father from friendly families and resided with the principal of the instant case on September 30, 202.

(2) While the Defendant tried to find the Plaintiff in the course of the instant lawsuit and tried to make a conversation, it was not possible for the Plaintiff to have a conversation at all due to the Plaintiff’s refusal. Even in the investigation process by the family affairs investigator of the first instance court, the Defendant continuously requested the dialogue with the Plaintiff, while requesting information from the counseling agency to hold an interview with the Defendant’s mother, but the Plaintiff, who was consulted once, refused to participate in the long-term counseling process through the counseling agency.

(3) The Defendant mother also waited for a day after the Plaintiff’s residence, and attempted to communicate with the Plaintiff and see the Plaintiff.

(4) The Defendant consistently complained of the unity with the Plaintiff, while consistently, that the original and the Defendant is able to lead a smooth family life through dialogue.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's mother suffered excessive involvement and interference with the plaintiff's mother's marital life, forced the defendant to take an accident or attitude of living, forced the plaintiff to take a look at or take a test on the plaintiff's father's mother, and the defendant treats the plaintiff unfairly. The defendant's mother is responsible for involvement and interference with the plaintiff's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's participation and interference with the plaintiff's mother's mother's mother's mother's life without undue treatment, such as disregarding the wife's wife, avoiding the plaintiff's wife, assaulting the plaintiff's mother, etc., the plaintiff's mother's bad faith was neglected for a period of time without the defendant's refusal to divorce, and the defendant's mother's attitude that affected the marital life did not change to the plaintiff's mother's mother's ability to return to the smooth marital life, and therefore, the defendant's failure to return to the plaintiff's mother's mother and the defendant's mother's mother's mother's mother to 30.

3. Determination

A. It is understood that a somewhat unreasonable speech and behavior based on the excessive interest and speed of Defendant mother as well as one person as a guardian has served as an burden and inconvenience to the Plaintiff. It is understood that the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s wrong speech at the time of the Defendant mother’s examination.

However, according to the above facts, the involvement of the defendant's mother is somewhat unreasonable, and it seems that it is not to be a malicious act against the plaintiff or to make it impossible for the plaintiff to lead a marital life. The plaintiff also thought that the behavior of the defendant's mother, who viewed the defendant's mother, who viewed the defendant's mother, as seen in comparison with the plaintiff's mother, as different meaning, and rather criticizes the elderly's mother, etc., the prejudice against the defendant's mother. Meanwhile, after considering the complaints from the plaintiff after the plaintiff's childbirth of the case, the defendant's mother was prevented from participating in Daejeon, and it cannot be seen that the defendant's involvement or control of the defendant's mother, such as the early marriage, was repeated since March 199, when the defendant was the plaintiff's mother and the defendant was separated.

After that, around 200, the Plaintiff’s objection to the living together with the Plaintiff’s female, interference with the house head around May 2001, and received instructions from the Defendant’s mother on September 21, 2001, and it appears that the reflection was explosiond. However, the above reasons cannot be said to exceed the extent that it could have been involved in the work of the Plaintiff’s female mother as a prone machine.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant mother committed an unfair act to the extent that it would be a ground for divorce against the Plaintiff.

B. Although the Defendant did not take account of the Plaintiff’s position at the early stage of marriage and advocate the Defendant’s mother, it does not seem that the Defendant’s unfair involvement or interference by the Defendant’s mother was repeated, and that the Defendant took place such action thereafter, but the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s mother is difficult to be deemed as the unilateral mistake of the Defendant’s mother due to the opposing that the Plaintiff’s female living in the home of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc., and it is difficult to view that the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s mother was a unilateral mistake of the Defendant’s mother. Therefore, even if the

Although the Defendant’s use of violence twice against the Plaintiff was erroneous, there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the marriage life, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act alone, in light of the physical conflict circumstance as of June 1, 2002, where the Plaintiff’s act was unable to continue to engage in marriage, and where the Plaintiff’s act was unable to continue to engage in marriage, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act alone, in light of the physical conflict circumstance as of June 1, 2002, is sufficient to deem that there was an unreasonable treatment to the extent that it was impossible to continue marriage, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s act was unable to continue to engage in marriage.

Around May 30, 2002, the Defendant’s strong opposition against the Plaintiff’s mother’s mother in the Plaintiff’s currency, but this took place late at night to the Plaintiff’s wife’s husband’s wife who applied for divorce, and accordingly, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have treated the Plaintiff’s mother unfairly.

The plaintiff prepared a divorce document, withdrawn the deposit, and unilaterally withdrawn on June 1, 2002, and immediately brought the lawsuit of this case, and thereafter, the defendant could not be deemed to have abandoned the plaintiff, since the defendant was unable to reach the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's refusal or challenge.

C. On September 21, 2001, the Defendant’s agreement accepted the Plaintiff’s request for divorce on June 1, 2002 and prepared an application for confirmation of intention of divorce, and the Plaintiff’s house has been separate from the Plaintiff’s house to the present day after the Plaintiff’s instruction of the Defendant mother on September 21, 2001, when the Plaintiff took place against the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant's acceptance of the plaintiff's request for divorce and the preparation of the application for confirmation of the intention of divorce was made in the extreme interest situation induced from the plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the defendant had done so with the intention of the defendant in light of the defendant's attitude thereafter. The defendant's involvement or interference with the defendant's mother and the plaintiff's mother has been interrupted, or the defendant or the plaintiff has maintained an independent attitude from such influence, and the defendant or the plaintiff could have maintained a matrimonial life without any special problems if more care was given to each other's position in the location of the baby or her mother, the defendant has consistently expressed his intention to continue a smooth family life through dialogue, and the defendant's mother also expressed his intention to obtain the plaintiff and will not participate in a marital relationship to recover the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. In light of various circumstances, it is difficult to view that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has been forced to continue a marital relationship to the extent that it can not be recovered and there is no pain to the plaintiff.

D. Ultimately, the plaintiff's divorce claim, consolation money, division of property, designation of person with parental authority and custodian, and visitation right claim is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance on divorce, consolation money, division of property, and visitation right is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the claim for designation of person with parental authority and custodian added in the trial is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)