The requirements to be approved in our country by the U.S.T.T.T. Supreme Court's divorce judgment against the couple of Korean nationality.

In order for a final judgment of a foreign court to be approved in our country, each condition stipulated in Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be satisfied, and the above provision shall also apply to a final judgment of a foreign court ordering a divorce between Korean nationals. In order to hold that a foreign court which rendered a judgment of divorce has the jurisdiction over a foreign court in the case of conflict of interest, etc., it is required that the address of the other party be located in that country except in exceptional cases where the other party to the claim of divorce is missing, other similar circumstances exist, or where it is deemed that the other party actively responded and the benefit is not likely to be unfairly infringed. In addition, it is required that a defendant who has lost in a lawsuit has received lawful service by means

Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 92S26 dated February 21, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1101)

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Sung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The person who exercises parental authority over the principal of the case and takes care of him shall designate the plaintiff.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 300,000 won per month from August 24, 1996 to January 11, 2010 as the child support for the principal of this case at the end of each month.

4. The plaintiff's claim for consolation money and the claim for division of property are dismissed.

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes, and four parts shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below 1 and 2 above and the defendant paid 100,000,000 won as consolation money to the plaintiff as property division, and 100,000,000 won as division of property, respectively. The defendant paid 50,000 won per month to the plaintiff as the child support of the principal of this case from the delivery date of the complaint of this case to January 11, 2010 as the child support of the principal of this case.

1. Facts of recognition;

The evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 7, 8-1, 2, Eul evidence of subparagraph 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5-1 through 4, 6-1, 2, 7, 9, 10-1, 2, 11, 12-1 through 3, 13, 14-1, 2, 15-1 through 5, 17, 19, 19-1, 2, 21-1, 20, 221-1, 22, 3 of the witness evidence of subparagraphs 1 and 6-1, 3 of the above evidence of the witness who is not contrary to the evidence of subparagraphs 1 and 7, 14-1, 2, 15-1 through 5, 16, 19, 19-1, 20, 21-1, 22, and 22-1, 3 of the witness testimony and evidence of each subparagraph 1, 1, 6-1 and 3 of the witness evidence

A. On October 6, 1987, the plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed a marriage report and have the principal of the case under the chain.

B. On August 12, 1987, the Defendant returned to the United States, after temporarily returning to the Republic of Korea, when he was enrolled in the Cho Man-si University in the United States, the Defendant reported on August 12, 1987, the Plaintiff’s age exceeded 30 years of age to the Republic of Korea and the Plaintiff’s father (her husband) married to the Republic of Korea on August 29 of the same year, and returned to the United States immediately thereafter. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was in a non-self-child relationship with the Plaintiff and went back to the United States on December 6 of the same year upon receiving the visa, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to live in the United States of America from that time.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, without having understood each other as above, was unable to be able to resist each other by marriage. As such, the difference between the method of accident and the nature of each other, and due to the burden of mental stress and study in U.S. life, etc., they were a minor problem from marriage after marriage. There were many cases where the Plaintiff and the Defendant took only their own thoughts and did not resolve one time due to the difference of opinions.

D. The plaintiff living in the United States, who wants to enter the master’s degree course, was pregnant immediately after the birth of the plaintiff, and was obstructed the studies, and was engaged in two times or more after marriage despite the defendant’s detention. Also, if the defendant’s friendships did not want to find his house and the defendant’s friendships were found in his house, the plaintiff's father expressed his color so that he could bring about the defendant’s position. The plaintiff’s father's life as a member of the students of the U.S. who want to enter the master’s degree course, and the plaintiff's father purchased a high-priced apartment and a high-priced apartment and wanting to purchase it in the house, despite the defendant’s exclusively wanting to do so.

E. On the other hand, the defendant has a complaint against the above correspondence of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not act in his mind, or the plaintiff did not have any meals prepared by the plaintiff, and started his house as a minor issue, such as expressing the plaintiff's complaint, and the plaintiff was suffering from mental stress. The plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental stress due to the above behavior of the plaintiff and the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff was frequently in dispute with the plaintiff due to the above behavior of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant was blishing the plaintiff and blished the plaintiff with verbal abuse, and blished the plaintiff by assaulting the plaintiff, and thereafter caused the plaintiff to be blished several times from the defendant.

F. On June 192, 192, the Plaintiff completed the master’s degree course at the Youngnam University, and sought to enter the master’s degree course at the above university, but the Plaintiff did not obtain such admission, and the Plaintiff was willing to enter the tex university located in the tex. However, the Defendant had not yet completed his doctor’s degree course and caused inconvenience to board the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s opposition to this issue.

However, the plaintiff continued to oppose the plaintiff's entrance into the tex university, and agreed to follow the plaintiff's purport without the defendant's consent. On September of the same year, the plaintiff and the defendant were directors of the texton group and had them reside at the place around that time.

G. In addition, around April 1993, the plaintiff and the defendant proved that they moved to the principal of the case and moved to the passenger car, and that they want to sit to the principal of the case, and the defendant applied to the plaintiff on the wind that the plaintiff applied to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff returned to the principal of the case and returned to the plaintiff after the plaintiff returned to the house.

H. On June 1993, the Defendant, alone, returned to the U.S., on July 1993, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff sought to obtain political doctor’s degrees; (b) but (c) the Plaintiff, who did not obtain a doctor’s degree at the time, was willing to make a preparation for admission to a doctor’s degree course; and (d) the Defendant, alone, returned to the Republic of Korea at the time of July of the same year.

I. The defendant returned to Korea and worked as a part-time lecturer at several universities, and went to the United States on January 1, 1994. In this case, the plaintiff requested a divorce from the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff abuseds the plaintiff during his own course and went to the United States, and the defendant stated that he returned once again to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was living together with the plaintiff and the defendant around February 1994. After returning to the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff was living in the principal of the case at the home of the plaintiff living together with the plaintiff living together with his own body, and the defendant was living in the family of his own body, and the plaintiff was living in the plaintiff living together with his own body at Daejeon as a part-time lecturer, and the plaintiff became a part-time lecturer after his return to the Republic of Korea, and the plaintiff requested a divorce continuously after his return to the Republic of Korea.

(j) After having returned together with the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) committed the act of assaulting the Plaintiff during his residence in the United States; and (b) requested the Plaintiff to persuade the Plaintiff; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff’s parents also opposed to the divorce of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to continue to divorce; (b) the Defendant, who became the father of the Plaintiff, becomes the Plaintiff and was frightened when the Defendant was divorced in the Republic of Korea.

카. 그러던 중, 원고는 1995. 5.경 피고에게는 아무 말 없이 사건본인을 데리고 미국으로 출국하여 버렸고, 그 이후 피고는 1996. 1.경 미국 텍사스주 덴턴으로 가서 전화교환수를 통하여 원고의 행방을 알고 원고를 찾아갔으나, 원고는 피고가 찾아오자 겁을 먹고는 경찰을 불러서 피고가 원고를 찾아오는 것을 막았다. 이에 피고는 하는 수 없이 원고에게 사정하여 사건본인과 하룻밤을 지내고는 원고에게 생활비로 미화 10,000$를 주고 다시 귀국하였다.

Other. Even after having returned to Korea, the Defendant sent several letters to the Plaintiff to understand the Plaintiff. However, on May 3, 1996, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking divorce, division of property, and designation of a custodian for the principal of the case with the District Court of the U.S.Tex Denn Branch. On August 5, 1996, the Defendant filed the instant divorce lawsuit with the party member on August 5, 1996.

m. On April 3, 1997, the above U.S. Tex Denton District Court served a complaint with respect to the defendant residing in our country and proceeded with the trial without the defendant's attendance. On April 3, 1997, the plaintiff and the defendant were divorced from the plaintiff and the defendant, and sentenced to a judgment containing the details of division of property of the plaintiff and the defendant and the disposition of raising the principal of the case (hereinafter referred to as the " U.S. judgment"). The above judgment

n. Won and the defendant received living expenses and school expenses from the plaintiff's father during the period of living in the United States after marriage. The defendant was employed as a full-time lecturer for one year after returning to the Republic of Korea around July 1993, and served in the above university as a full-time lecturer at Daejeon University (department name omitted) around March 1995. On June 1995, the plaintiff left the United States and worked in the above university as a full-time lecturer at the above university. On June 1995, Daejeon-dong 220 Ga-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon (Dong & Dong omitted) around 30,000,000 won around 30,000 won and resided in the above apartment house from around 10,000 won under the name of the defendant, 30,000 won, 9,000 won and 9,000 won, 9,000 won and 9,000 won and 9,000 won as of February 28, 1997.

2. Effects of the U.S. judgment.

In order for the final judgment of a foreign court to be approved in our country, each condition under Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be satisfied, and the above provision of the law shall also be applied to the final judgment of a foreign court ordering a divorce between Korean nationals.

Furthermore, we examine whether the above U.S. judgment satisfies the conditions under Article 203 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, first of all, in order to hold jurisdiction over a foreign court which rendered a divorce judgment in the case of conflict of interest, the address of the other party should be located in that country except in exceptional cases where the other party to the divorce claim is missing or where the other party actively complies with it and it is deemed that the other party's interest is not likely to be unduly infringed. In this case, at the time of filing a lawsuit for divorce against the defendant at the District Court of Denex Denton, the defendant has a domicile in our country, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant was missing at the time of the lawsuit or other similar situation, or that the defendant actively responded to the lawsuit. Accordingly, under Article 203 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, the above U.S. judgment did not meet the requirements of Article 203 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant was unable to reach the above judgment of the court in light of the above legal justice of the U.

Therefore, the above U.S. judgment has no effect in our country since it appears to be a mother and did not meet the conditions of approval under Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on divorce and consolation money claim

A. Determination on the claim for divorce

According to the above facts, the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was no longer restored to the extent that it would no longer be recovered. The reason for the above is that both the plaintiff and the defendant reached an opinion from the beginning of marriage, and they did not seek a reasonable compromise point in view of the other party's position, and they did not want to find a reasonable compromise point in view of the opposite party's position, and they often conflict with the other party's opinion, and they did not seem to have been able to dispute the above frequently in the situation where there is insufficient difficulties between the plaintiff and the defendant's right to marriage, and they would be able to make the plaintiff's objection at the risk of the defendant's objection for study immediately after marriage, and the plaintiff's claim for divorce against the plaintiff and the defendant's right to live together with the defendant's wrong opinion that the plaintiff's right to live together with the defendant's right to claim divorce against the plaintiff and the defendant's right to claim for divorce against the plaintiff from time to time without the defendant's objection to the plaintiff's right to live together.

B. Determination on the claim of consolation money

Meanwhile, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered a large amount of mental pain due to the plaintiff's error in the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, as seen above, the degree of liability between the plaintiff and the defendant is no longer recognized as the degree of liability of either party to the other party, and it is reasonable to fully exempt the plaintiff and the defendant from the liability to pay consolation money to each other. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of consolation money of this case is without merit.

4. Determination on the claim for division of property

A. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion

As the cause of the claim for division of property of this case, the Plaintiff claimed for payment of KRW 100,00,000 as property division against the Defendant, by asserting that: (a) the Defendant’s claim for refund of deposit for lease of KRW 30,000,000 for the above lot apartment in the name of the Defendant and the monthly income and retirement allowances to be received by the Defendant shall be the subject of the division of property of this case; (b) the Defendant and the Defendant received living expenses from the Plaintiff’s husband and the Defendant exclusively while studying in the United States immediately after marriage; and (c) the Defendant obtained a doctor’s degree and was employed as a full-time lecturer at the University (name omitted) university (name omitted); and (d) the Defendant is liable for a total amount of KRW 33,000,000 for financial institutions; and accordingly, (c) the Defendant shall also be the subject of division of property.

(b) Markets:

(1) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the deposit on the deposit before the Plaintiff’s claim and the Defendant’s claim for loans are subject to division of property in this case.

According to the above facts, the defendant, around June 1995, obtained a deposit of KRW 30,00,00 from the above 30,000,00,000, and held a claim for the refund of the deposit of KRW 25,659,029, which is the sum of the deposit of KRW 25,659,029 ($ 5,669,000 + 19,90,029) to the Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the National Bank of Korea on the basis of around March 1997. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant continued to separate the above deposit of KRW 25,659,00,00 from the deposit of the plaintiff and the defendant's father or the plaintiff's father, it is difficult to view that the above claim for the refund of the deposit of KRW 25,659,029 was acquired through the joint efforts of the plaintiff and the defendant's father and thus, it is difficult to view that the above claim for the refund of the deposit of property.

(2) Next, we examine whether the defendant's future monthly income and retirement allowance are subject to division of property, and division of property following divorce is subject to the property owned by both spouses at the time of divorce, and even if one spouse has worked in the workplace and has to receive a monthly income in the future and has to receive a retirement allowance in the case of retirement, such circumstance is sufficient to consider as "other circumstances" necessary to determine the amount and method of division under Article 839-2 (2) of the Civil Code. Thus, the defendant's future monthly income and retirement allowance claimed by the plaintiff is not subject to division of property in this case.

(3) Ultimately, the Defendant’s claim for division of property does not have the common property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, is without merit.

5. Judgment on the disposition of fostering

A. Determination on the claim for designation of the exerciser of parental authority and custodian

Considering all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstance of the plaintiff and the defendant's marriage dissolution, the age of the principal of this case, the degree of difficulties to the principal of this case, the status of the plaintiff and the defendant's property, and the fact that the plaintiff currently raises the principal of this case, etc., it is deemed reasonable for the plaintiff to continue to rear the principal of this case and to allow the plaintiff to exercise his parental authority for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of this case. Thus, the plaintiff shall be designated as the person exercising parental authority and the custodian of the principal of this case

B. Determination on the claim for child support

On the other hand, the defendant is the father who is jointly responsible for raising the principal of this case together with the plaintiff and has a duty to share the child support for the principal of this case. Furthermore, considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as health class, the age of the principal of this case, the age and status of the original and the defendant, the child support to be shared by the defendant shall be set at KRW 300,000 per month. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 300,000 per month from August 24, 1996 to January 11, 201 of the day before the principal of this case reaches the age of majority, which is clearly recorded that it is a delivery date of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant are divorced, and the above provision is reasonable with respect to the disposition of fostering the principal of this case. Thus, each of the claims of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the claim for consolation money and the claim for division of property are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)