[1] In a case where a U.S. citizen claims consolation money, etc. against her husband who is a U.S. citizen against the Republic of Korea and a counterclaim against her husband is filed with a court in the Republic of Korea, whether the jurisdiction exists and

[2] In a case where a final and conclusive judgment of divorce has already been rendered by a court of our country against the husband who is a Korean citizen of the U.S., before a final and conclusive judgment of the U.S. court against the husband, the validity of the U.S.

[3] Whether res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment of a divorce action affects a claim for consolation money due to divorce between the parties concerned (negative)

[1] In case where a lawsuit claiming consolation money, division of property, child support, etc. is brought to the court of our country against a citizen of the Republic of Korea who is a father of the U.S. citizen's right to claim compensation, division of property, child support, etc. as a counterclaim against it, the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to parental right and to request visitation right, etc. is brought to the court of our country, and the right to jurisdiction over counterclaim as well as counterclaim has been brought to the court of our country without asserting the jurisdiction of the court of the United States. As to consolation money due to divorce, if the principal ground for marital life and the place where the failure was caused to occur in our country, the law of our country is the governing law in accordance with Article 13 (1) of the Conflict of Laws Act. Since division of property is to adjust the property relationship between husband and wife, the law of our country, which is the defendant's home country, the obligation to support child support, and the law of our country, which is the law of our country's home country and its father pursuant to Article 23 of the law of our country.

[2] If the final and conclusive judgment of the court of the United States of America is a citizen of the Republic of Korea residing in the Republic of Korea, and if that defendant is not actively responding to the final and conclusive judgment, it cannot be deemed that the judgment satisfies the requirements of Article 203 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act since it was conducted without jurisdiction, and it cannot be deemed that the judgment satisfies the requirements of Article 203 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. In addition, if a final and conclusive judgment of the court of the United States of America has already been made before the judgment of the court of the United States of America, the judgment of the court

[3] In a divorce lawsuit, the subject matter of the lawsuit is to be judged only when the cause for divorce alleged by the plaintiff in the lawsuit in question exists. The subject matter of the lawsuit is the existence of a cause for divorce and the subject matter of the lawsuit claiming consolation money on the ground that the cause for divorce lies in the other party's cause for the failure of marriage. Therefore, although the two subject matter of the lawsuit is closely related to each other, the subject matter of the lawsuit is separate and different from each other's legal basis and nature, and therefore, the final judgment of the divorce lawsuit does not immediately affect the claim of consolation money for reasons of divorce of the person who is judged as the party to whom the plaintiff is responsible for the judgment.

[1] Article 203 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 13(1), 16, 17, 18, 22, and 23 of the Conflict of Laws Act / [2] Article 203 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Meu71 delivered on April 12, 198 (Gong198, 845), Supreme Court Decision 93Da39607 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 26), / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Meu1051, 1068 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1692)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Young-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Shin-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Principal of the case

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim for consolation money is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay as consolation money to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the amount of twenty thousand won with five percent per annum from October 14, 1995 to November 1, 1996, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s remaining counterclaim damages are dismissed.

4. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays 10,000,000 won as division of property to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

5. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 300,000 per month from May 10, 1995 to April 24, 2012 as the child support for the principal of the instant case.

6. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) may visit the principal of the case to visit the principal of the case and negotiate each day from January 11 to August 17 of the same month and from August 1 to July of the same month, respectively.

7. The costs of lawsuit shall be three minutes in total, including the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and one of them shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the remainder by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

8. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter only the Defendant is the counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff is the counterclaim Defendant) pays KRW 20,000,000 as consolation money, and KRW 30,000,00 as division of property, respectively. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s child support for the principal of this case, which is KRW 400,000 as of the last day of April 25, 2012 from the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case to April 25, 2012.

Counterclaim: The purport of Paragraph 6 and the purport of the same paragraph, and the amount equivalent to 30,00,000 won to the defendant from October 27, 1994 to the delivery date of the duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the next day to the full payment date, and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the next day to the next day. The defendant may visit the principal of this case to the plaintiff's domicile from 6:00 p.m. on the last day of every month to 7:0 p.m. on the following day. The defendant may visit the principal of this case from 6:0 p.m. to 6:0 p.m. on the day he wishes to move to the Republic of Korea and reside in the Republic of Korea as the principal of this case separately from the above period.

1. The jurisdiction and applicable law;

The plaintiff, who is a U.S. citizen of the Republic of Korea, sought the payment of consolation money and division of property, and child support for the principal of the case, as the principal lawsuit against the defendant who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea. The defendant, as a counterclaim, sought the payment of consolation money according to divorce with the plaintiff and the visitation right to the principal of the case on the premise that the plaintiff is the person who takes care of the principal of the case. Thus, the plaintiff has the jurisdiction over the principal of the court of the U.S. and the counterclaim, and this court has jurisdiction over the principal of the lawsuit as well as the counterclaim. On the other hand, as stated below, the principal ground for the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant and the place of the failure are our country, and the law of the country is the governing law of the country in accordance with Article 13 (1) of the Conflict of Laws and Laws, since division of property is adjusted by the division of property between the couple and the principal of the case, the defendant's obligation to support the effect of marriage and the law of the country's nationality, which belongs to the defendant's legal relations.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim of consolation money and the defendant's counterclaim

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 27, evidence Nos. 1-29 through 43, evidence Nos. 29 through 11, evidence Nos. 13 through 17, evidence Nos. 19 through evidence Nos. 24, evidence Nos. 19 through 24, Eul evidence Nos. 1-5-3, Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 22-3, evidence Nos. 24-1 through 32, Eul evidence Nos. 24-1 through 24-2, witness part of evidence Nos. 1-28, witness testimony (Provided, That the part which is not trusted after the fact is excluded), the whole purport of pleading in the investigation report by a family affairs investigator is not consistent with the purport of evidence Nos. 1-28, and there is no contrary evidence No.

(1) The Plaintiff graduated from the Republic of Korea and was going to study in the United States. Around August 1985, the Plaintiff married with Nonparty 1 on and around June 5, 1990, but divorced upon a judgment of divorce by the court of the United States of America. In addition, around April 1990, the Plaintiff purchased an apartment bond under its name at the State of California (Si), and the mother, who was living together with Nonparty 2, who was the mother who was living in his body by distinguishing her husband from her place of residence and by distinguishing her husband from her body.

Since July 1985, the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea after having completed study in the United States, and worked for the non-party 3 corporation (name omitted) from around September 1989 as an associate professor at the (name omitted) school in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and had been living in the area of 17,000,000 won by getting full-time 130,000 won in the (name omitted) from around September 1989.

(2) On August 25, 1990, the Plaintiff and the Defendant conspiredd with Nonparty 4 with the introduction of Nonparty 4, and agreed on each other. However, the Plaintiff’s mother, who met against Nonparty 2’s opposition, shall prepare a letter of intent to believe and love the Plaintiff on or around April 25, 1991 (Evidence 2) and received the consent.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement that they will live in the Republic of Korea after marriage in the 63 building of women's intention around May 4, 1991.

However, the Plaintiff had filed an application for acquiring U.S. citizenship around March of the same year, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea immediately after the above type of matrimonial engagement, and the Defendant left the Republic of Korea as it is, and the Republic of Korea remains in the Republic of Korea, using a bronology on July 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff went through a marriage ceremony at the U.S. Law Conference around July 20 of the same year.

(3) The plaintiff and the defendant, after marriage, live in the plaintiff's apartment house in the above U.S. and returned first to the defendant around August 20 of the same year, and the plaintiff remains in the U.S. on October 10 of the same year and returned together with the above non-party 2 around the 30th day of the same month.

In addition, the plaintiff and the defendant completed the marriage report on December 6 of the same year.

(4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant around that time tried to prepare a scambling house in Incheon City, the Defendant’s workplace, and the Defendant did not take part in the house. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to live in the wooden apartment located in the So-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Dong-dong omitted) which was owned by the above non-party 2. Furthermore, around that time, the Defendant terminated the lease contract for the above new-dong apartment and received the refund of the deposit.

(5) The plaintiff was pregnant by the principal of this case, but he was born in the U.S., and the defendant went to the U.S. around January 27, 1992 with the plaintiff and the above non-party 2. Around March 1 of the same year, the defendant returned to the Republic of Korea on his own, and lived in the so-called safac apartment of the above female will, and the plaintiff gave birth to the principal of this case in the U.S. around April 25 of the

(6) However, since the Defendant could move in in full and in full the selling price of Hyundai Apartment (Dong & Ho omitted) located in Seoul (hereinafter omitted), which had been sold in lots prior to marriage, the Defendant moved in part of the shot-si's shot-si's shot-si's shot-si's shot-si's shot-si's shot-si.

(7) On August 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff returned to Korea with the principal of the case and Nonparty 2.

(8) On the other hand, the Defendant transferred the amount of USD 500 to KRW 5,00 each month between August 1991 and July 1992 during the period of money in the United States from around August 191, 191 to around July 1992 to the Defendant after marriage. The Plaintiff was funded with the money to cover the living expenses in the United States, and was also funded with the management expenses, etc. for apartments owned by the Plaintiff in the United States.

(9) When the Plaintiff and the above non-party 2 came to know that the Defendant was intending to move into a modern apartment in the above (dong name omitted), they accepted this fact by the Defendant’s act from the purport that the said non-party 2 would not gather the above non-party 2, and criticize the Defendant. Accordingly, on August 23 of the same year, the Defendant, under his joint signature with the Plaintiff and the above non-party 2, prepared a letter (Evidence A No. 5) stating that the residential problem would comply with the above non-party 2’s opinion, and decided to live in the above female-do housing as before according to the above non-party 2’s opinion, and the above (dong name omitted)'s modern apartment will put the interest on the security deposit to another person and write it out in the living expenses.

(10) Accordingly, around September 16 of the same year, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with Nonparty 5 on a deposit basis with the amount of KRW 65,00,000 with respect to the modern apartment of the above (dong name omitted).

(11) On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not properly inform the trial parents, etc. of the state of fostering the principal of the instant case by taking contact with the trial room. On October 6 of the same year, the principal of the instant case had been under a sloping surgery. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s penal number, which became aware of, did not go through a sloping surgery, caused the Defendant to drink the Defendant by drinking the Defendant, and the Defendant also sought against it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to a scalfying surgery by suffering from injury, such as inside and outside heat, etc., of the 1 week period, and the Defendant suffered from injury, such as scalfying, etc., within the 3 weeks period.

(12) After that, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was aggravated, and around the 9th day of the same month, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 5,00,000 from the deposit passbook in the name of the Defendant in Korea Commercial Bank under the name of the Defendant without the name of the Defendant. The Defendant immediately reported the loss of the said deposit passbook on the following day, and immediately went through the re-issuance of the passbook, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s appraisal against the Defendant was aggravated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, while making anti-end and abusive remarks, made verbal abuse, such as selling the Defendant as C’s body and not sexually resistant, on account of the inconvenience of the Defendant’s bridge at the expense of the Plaintiff.

However, on the 15th day of the same month, the defendant prepared a letter (Evidence A 4) that reflects the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the plaintiff by driving the plaintiff, and will not carry out the future handker's autopsy in the future.

(13) However, the Defendant received the said deposit from Nonparty 5 on the same day, which was to receive the said (defluence omitted) Hyundai Apartment, and immediately after the settlement with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff spreaded to the place where the said deposit would be received, and the Defendant alone received the said deposit. The Defendant received KRW 40,000,000 out of the said deposit, and then returned to the Plaintiff, who returned to the NAF and returned to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is so divided that it is possible to treat it as such without the plaintiff's Hanmadi map, and it is all possible to leave it. As such, the plaintiff is divorced, it is sound that the defendant will go in the above domination apartment of the above women's intention and driving away from the defendant by combining it with the above non-party 2.

(14) The Defendant, after driving away the above wooden apartment, left alone, brought his personal belongings in the above wooden apartment around the 22th of the same month, and cut off the contact with the Plaintiff.

(15) Afterwards, the Plaintiff sought contact with the Defendant by telephone, content-certified mail, etc., for the delivery of documents necessary for the extension of the period of stay for the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but was not infinite, and left the Republic of Korea around December 19 of the same year. Afterwards, the Plaintiff returned temporarily to the Defendant on April 193, 193, which was difficult to care of the principal of the case, but did not make any contact with the Defendant.

(16) Around October 18, 1993, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking divorce and designation of the Defendant as a person fostering the principal of the case on the ground of the Plaintiff’s unfair treatment and bad faith abandonment, etc. by this court as the court 93D72530. The Plaintiff was served a copy of the complaint on April 12, 1994, but did not actively respond to the said lawsuit.

On October 13 of the same year, the court affirmed the argument of the above lawsuit and rendered a judgment that the defendant's claim for divorce was accepted, but the plaintiff's claim for designation as a custodian is desirable to rear the principal of the case. The original copy of the judgment was delivered to the defendant on November 4 of the same year and on December 23 of the same year to the plaintiff on December 23 of the same year.

On November 16, 195 of the same year, the defendant filed an appeal seeking revocation of the lost part within the period of appeal, and on January 27, 1995, the plaintiff filed an incidental appeal seeking revocation of the lost part (the plaintiff was changed to the purport of seeking incidental appeal which was revealed to be the first time of appeal, although the plaintiff was simply filing an appeal), and on March 25 of the same year filed a counterclaim seeking divorce with the defendant, the payment of consolation money, the designation of a custodian, and the payment of child support.

However, the defendant withdrawn the appeal on April 12 of the same year after the plaintiff consented to the plaintiff's counterclaim, and the plaintiff withdraws the counterclaim on the following day. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the judgment of the court of first instance, became final and conclusive after the lapse of January 6, 1995, which is the expiration date of the period of appeal.

(17) On the other hand, on April 22, 1994, immediately after being served with the copy of the above complaint, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce with the defendant with the California District Court of California, California, and the above court rendered a judgment of acceptance of the plaintiff's claim, the date on which the marriage is terminated on the same date on January 10, 1995. The defendant did not file an appeal against it, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(18) On April 27 of the same year, the Defendant reported the family register according to the final judgment of this court 93D72530, and accordingly, the divorce between the Plaintiff was entered in the family register.

B. As to the defendant's argument that conflict with res judicata

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for consolation money of this case is responsible for the failure of a matrimonial relationship to the plaintiff, and it is not allowed as it violates the res judicata of the final judgment rendered on October 27, 1994 by the court of this case, which held that the plaintiff is responsible for the failure of a matrimonial relationship. The plaintiff asserts that the above final judgment of this court is not effective and the defendant's defense is not reasonable.

First, the above judgment of this court and the above judgment of the U.S. court are effective against the defendant residing in our country, and the above judgment of the U.S. court was made without the jurisdiction since there is no evidence to deem that the defendant actively respondeded to this judgment. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the requirements of Article 203 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act have been met. In addition, in the case where the judgment was appealed and withdrawn, it is returned to the same state as the plaintiff did not appeal from the beginning. Thus, the judgment of this court becomes effective retroactively to the time when the original period of appeal expires. Therefore, the above judgment of this court becomes effective retroactively to the time when the original period of appeal expires (the date two weeks from December 23, 1994 when the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the plaintiff) and its final judgment became effective as it becomes final and conclusive after the above judgment became final and conclusive by the court of the U.S. court's declaration that the above judgment had already become final and conclusive by the above judgment.

However, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money of this case is a health matter as to whether it conflicts with the res judicata of the above final judgment of this court, and in the case of divorce lawsuit, only whether the plaintiff's ground for divorce exists. Therefore, the subject matter of the lawsuit is the existence of grounds for divorce, and the subject matter of the lawsuit for consolation money of this case, compared to the existence of the plaintiff's claim for divorce, the subject matter of the lawsuit for consolation money of this case is the existence of the other party's claim for damages on the ground that the other party's cause exists. Thus, the two subject matter of the lawsuit for consolation money of this case is closely related to each other, but it is a separate subject matter of lawsuit, different from each other's legal basis

Ultimately, the defendant's defense is without merit.

C. Existence and scope of the claim for consolation money

(1) According to the above facts, it cannot be said that there is no part of the liability even for the plaintiff who caused bodily injury to the plaintiff and the defendant, but more fundamentally, the main responsibility is that the defendant, who is the mother, is forced to gather and live a part of the mother, who is the mother of the defendant, and is forced to do so, first of all, the defendant, who is the mother of the defendant, is forced to take a trial fee, be injured, and the defendant is forced to spawn the defendant, and the defendant is forced to spawn the defendant, and the defendant is going away from the house where the defendant was living together, and was finished without his chest, so the plaintiff is the principal reason and the plaintiff has a duty to pay the mental suffering suffered by the defendant due to the above marital failure, and in light of the seriousness of the causes attributable to the above above, it is reasonable to exempt the defendant from the duty to pay consolation

(2) Furthermore, the amount of consolation money that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay shall be determined as KRW 20,000,000, considering the whole circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, in full view of the health class, the age of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, occupation, status of status, property degree, the course and period of marriage, the cause and period of the failure, and other circumstances.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay as consolation money 20,000,000 won to the defendant and the damages for delay at each rate of 25,000 per annum under the Civil Act from October 14, 1995 to November 1, 1996, the date of this decision, which is deemed reasonable for the plaintiff to bring a dispute against the plaintiff from October 14, 1995, on the record that the copy of the counterclaim of this case containing the purport that the defendant seeks payment to the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the defendant's counterclaim claim for consolation money is justified within the scope of seeking it, and the remaining claims are without merit, while the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is without merit.

3. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property

(a) Facts of recognition;

In addition to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence No. 6-1 to Eul evidence No. 7-14, the following facts may be acknowledged, and there is no other evidence to view otherwise.

(1) The Defendant, from July 1985 to August 1989, worked in the non-party 3 corporation (name omitted). Around May 1989, the Defendant joined the said company’s housing association and purchased modern apartment (dong and lake omitted) in Seoul (hereinafter omitted). From that time to June 26, 1991, the Defendant paid KRW 70,340,000 as the sales price to the Plaintiff from that time until June 26, 1991.

At the same time, since September 1989, the defendant had been working as an associate professor at a school (name omitted) located in Incheon (department omitted) in Incheon (department omitted) from September 2, 198, and had been 17,000,000 won in the amount of 3 Dongdong Apartment apartment located in Nam-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon (Seoul).

(2) On April 1990, the Plaintiff, a marriage with the Defendant, purchased an apartment bond under the name of the State of California (Si), California (Si), and had been living together with the above non-party 2, the mother of which was his mother. On the other hand, the above non-party 2 owned a wooden apartment (dong and lake omitted) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

(3) The plaintiff and the defendant, around May 4, 1991, were engaged in matrimonial engagement with the defendant around July 20 of the same year, but they continued to stay in the United States even after marriage with the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff must reside in the United States until he acquired the U.S. citizenship. They returned to Korea around October 30 of the same year. They again returned to Korea on the ground that they want to give birth to the principal in the United States on January 27, 1992, and they returned to Korea around August 20 of the same year after they returned to Korea on the ground that they want to give birth to the principal in the United States on around October 15 of the same year, which is only two months after that, they began to go separately from the defendant around October 15 of the same year, and they returned to the United States on December 19 of the same year. Thus, the period for living together with the plaintiff and the defendant as the married couple and they continued to engage in the business of living together with the defendant shall not exceed five months.

(4) As above, the Defendant transferred the monthly amount of US$500 to 5,000 during the period from August 1991 to July 1992, 192 due to the Plaintiff’s living expenses, the instant principal’s childbirth expenses, etc. In order to cover the money for living expenses, and to cover the management expenses, etc. of apartment houses located in the United States under the provision of paragraph (2) above.

(5) After the Plaintiff returned to Korea on October 30, 1991, the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiff and the above non-party 2, decided to reside in the wood apartment located in the above non-party 2, the above non-party 2, to move his residence to his place. The Defendant terminated the lease contract for the new-dong apartment located in Incheon, and received return of KRW 17,00,000 for the deposit money.

In addition, on December 5, 191, as part of the remainder of the sale price for the modern apartment located in the (name omitted) of the above paragraph (1), KRW 4,000,000 shall be paid from May 4, 1992 to the occupancy price except bank loans, and KRW 2,004,00 shall be paid from May 4, 1992 to each apartment, and on June 5 of the same year, the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the defendant for the above apartment, and the remainder shall be deposited in the defendant's commercial bank deposit passbook and appropriated for living expenses, etc.

On October 9, 1992, the Plaintiff withdrawn and consumed KRW 5,000,000, which had been remaining in the above commercial bank deposit passbook without being represented by the Defendant.

(6) On the other hand, around September 16, 1992, the Defendant: (a) around September 16, 1992, issued to Nonparty 5 a deposit amount of KRW 65,00,000 to Nonparty 5; (b) around October 15, 1992, received KRW 40,000,000 as part of the deposit money; and (c) deposited to Nonghyup through a sale.

(7) While the Plaintiff and the Defendant living together in the Republic of Korea, the monthly salary, etc. of the Defendant was managed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s monthly salary was 1,170,000 won in ordinary cases, and was 3,300,000 won in the month of bonus. Among them, the Plaintiff paid a monthly payment for the loans of the Korea Housing Bank, and appropriated the remainder for the living expenses, etc. including the management expenses of the Gan apartment in which the said female was located.

(8) A part of the sale price of modern apartment was appropriated to KRW 13,00,000,00 in the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank. The remainder of the principal and interest on September 1992 is KRW 12,774,472, and the current market price of the apartment is approximately KRW 100,00,000.

(9) The Plaintiff and the Defendant have been separate since October 15, 1992.

(b) The objects and scope of the division;

(1) According to the above facts, Hyundai Apartment, which is registered as preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant, was sold in lots before marriage with the plaintiff and paid most of the purchase price. However, part of the purchase price was paid after marriage and marriage with the plaintiff. The amount was set up as the deposit money that the defendant had resided in the above non-party 2, who had been living in the above non-party 2, for the cancellation of the lease contract for the new apartment in Incheon, which had been living until then, and the loan obligation related thereto was partly repaid by the plaintiff's household, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not contribute to the acquisition and maintenance of the above (dong name omitted). Accordingly, regardless of the name of the apartment, the apartment was actually acquired and maintained by the joint efforts of the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it is subject to division of property pursuant to a divorce. The loan obligation related to the apartment is also directly related to the acquisition of the above apartment, and it is subject to division of property.

(2) The Defendant appears to have asserted that the obligation to return the security deposit amount of KRW 65,00,000 for the above apartment should also be the object of the division. Thus, the Defendant appears to have asserted that the obligation to return the security deposit amount of KRW 65,00,00 for the above apartment should also be the object of the division.

However, since the defendant was holding the above security deposit in the form of deposit until the time when the plaintiff was living separately with the plaintiff, the obligation to return security deposit is not immediately considered as the defendant's property and it is not subject to division. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

(c) Method of partition;

Furthermore, considering the method of division in light of the health zone, the process of acquiring and using the above apartment, and the situation of marital life between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is not proper to divide the above apartment in kind, and it is reasonable to have the defendant finally revert to the defendant, and it is reasonable to have the defendant pay and settle the above apartment in cash to the extent corresponding to the plaintiff's contribution. In full view of the circumstances revealed in the above-mentioned reason for acquiring the apartment house, the period and circumstances of marital life between the plaintiff and the defendant, the reason and circumstances of the failure, and other circumstances shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to pay the plaintiff the amount of 10,000,000 won calculated by deducting the amount of the loan from the market price of the above apartment as a division of property.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff as division of property.

4. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for child support

As acknowledged earlier, inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the Defendant have brought up the principal of this case since the commencement of their separate domicile and the Defendant had dismissed the Defendant’s request for designation of a custodian to the effect that they would change the custodian, and the Plaintiff should continue to bring up the principal of this case in the future, the Defendant, as the father of the principal of this case, shall bear part of the child support together with the Plaintiff, who is the mother of the principal of this case. The amount of the child support to be borne by the Defendant shall be determined at least KRW 300,000 every month, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age,

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff an amount at the rate of KRW 300,00 per month from May 10, 1995 to April 24, 2012, which is clearly recorded that it is the next day for delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff as the child support for the principal of this case.

5. Determination as to the defendant's claim for visitation and negotiation

As mentioned above, in the case of this case where the defendant, his father, cannot find out special circumstances that the defendant's visitation and negotiation of the principal of this case could adversely affect the fostering or education of the principal of this case, it is reasonable to allow the defendant to interview and negotiate the principal of this case within a certain extent. The plaintiff is a U.S. citizen, and the principal of this case is expected to mainly rear the principal of this case in the U.S.......

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of consolation money is dismissed as it is without merit, and the defendant's counterclaim claim of consolation money is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim of division of property and child support and the interview right claim of the defendant are determined as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Nung-hwan (Presiding Judge)