2012dago 11947 (Mains) Divorce and Condolence Money

2013ddan12 (Counterclaim), divorce, consolation money, etc.

A

B

May 14, 2013

June 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (the plaintiff) are divorced by the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim. 2. The plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant)'s remainder of the principal lawsuit and the other counterclaim claims of the defendant (the plaintiff plaintiff) are all dismissed.

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

The principal lawsuit: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") are divorced as the cause of the defendant's liability. The defendant pays 2,00,000 won to the plaintiff as consolation money.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall be divorced by the defendant. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 10,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 11, 2010, the Plaintiff, a Vietnamese, reported marriage with the Defendant, and entered the Republic of Korea on May 19, 2010, and thereafter, was married with the Defendant from that time.

B. During the marriage period, the Defendant did not properly respond to the Plaintiff’s question on the ground that the Plaintiff repeats the same question. The Plaintiff was sent a text message stating that the Plaintiff would drink with the Vietnamese male, frighting to drink with the Internet crypt during the marriage life, and took a photograph with the Vietnamese, and made several telephone conversationss and love.

D. In 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) went out on the day immediately before the snow scambling; (b) went home at night; and (c) the Defendant’s punishment was committed on the ground that the Plaintiff was going out without preparing food once; and (c) the Defendant committed assaulting the Plaintiff’s punishment. At that time, the Defendant neglected to assault the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff, after receiving assault from the Defendant’s punishment as above, was living together with the Defendant from that time to that time.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a branch number), family affairs investigator's investigation report, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Claim for divorce

In full view of the above facts and the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant want to divorce, it is reasonable to deem that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant resulted in the failure to recover to the extent that it would no longer be recovered, and that the above action of the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes a cause for judicial divorce as stipulated in subparagraphs 1, 3, and 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Act, and that the plaintiff and the defendant's claim for divorce and counterclaim are justified. The plaintiff and the defendant's claim for divorce and counterclaim are justified, on the ground that they constitute grounds for judicial divorce as stipulated in subparagraphs 1, 3, and 6 of Article 840 of the Civil Act.

B. Claim of consolation money

As the plaintiff and the defendant are mainly responsible for the failure of the marriage of this case, they claim consolation money as the principal lawsuit and counterclaim against the other party by asserting that the other party has a duty to protect the mental suffering that they suffered from such failure in money. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff and the defendant are liable to the extent equal to the plaintiff and the defendant for causing the failure of the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant's claim for consolation money as the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims for divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant are accepted on the grounds of their merit, and all claims for consolation money against the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed on the grounds of their merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Goh Sung