The case which has accepted the divorce claim of the responsible spouse and ordered division of property, citing the divorce claim of the other party who is being simultaneously in progress as a separate lawsuit

Although a claim for divorce by the responsible spouse, which is mainly responsible for the failure of marriage, is not accepted, the other party has filed a divorce lawsuit by means of a separate lawsuit, and the other party has accepted the other party's claim for divorce on the date of rendering the judgment of this case. Thus, the claim for divorce by the responsible spouse shall be deemed to fall under the grounds prescribed in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and the claim for division of property shall be accepted, and the

Article 840 Subparag. 6, 843, and 839-2 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu28 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 810) Supreme Court Decision 91Meu177, and 184 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 202)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeong Jae-cheon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The principal of the case and one other

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the division of property on the date when this judgment became final and conclusive with respect to one fifth portion of each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant shall be designated as the person who exercises parental authority over the principal of the case and the guardian.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims 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 plaintiff shall be divorced from the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay 30,00,000 won consolation money to the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the plaintiff the ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to one half of the real estate stated in the attached Form list, which is based on the division of property on the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive. The plaintiff shall be designated as the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 300,000 won per month from the day following the day the judgment becomes final and conclusive until April 6, 200, and 150,000 won per month from the next day until January 5, 2002.

1. Divorce and consolation money;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, from the beginning of marriage to the point of marriage, the Defendant often treats the Plaintiff by frequently assaulting the Plaintiff due to mental illness, etc., and that the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was extinguished by leaving the Plaintiff at home and abandoning the Plaintiff in bad faith, thereby seeking a divorce on the ground that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was extinguished, and simultaneously seeking a payment of consolation money.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 10-1, 2-2, 3, and Eul evidence 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, 3-4, witness 1, witness 2-3, and witness 1-1 through 6, and the results of fact inquiries and the whole purport of oral arguments with respect to the chief of the Daegu KaTol University Hospital in this Court:

(1) On December 12, 1978, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reported a marriage as a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 2, 1979, and have the principal of the case between them.

(2) Before marriage with the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) had been living together for one year without filing a report of marriage with a woman in unsound name and marriage with the Plaintiff; and (b) had been married with the Plaintiff.

(3) From around November 1982, the Plaintiff neglected to take care of the principal of the instant case and take home under the influence of dancing, Kabac, etc., and was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant neglected to take care of the principal of the instant case, and neglected to take care of the Plaintiff in order to satisfy this. However, the Plaintiff continued to take care of the Plaintiff and did not have the nature of the Plaintiff, but did not come back from dancing, and went back frequently, and the husband’s fighting went out frequently. On November 14, 1991, the Plaintiff filed a divorce and a claim for consolation money as above on the ground of unfair treatment, such as the Defendant’s old, etc., and returned home after the Plaintiff’s revocation of a divorce lawsuit with the Plaintiff’s mother’s opinion.

(4) However, even after that, the Plaintiff had contact with Nonparty 1 by telephone, etc., and had it outside of the house, and the Defendant was at issue on October 22, 1992, and the Plaintiff went home again and returned home around that time.

(5) The Defendant, along with the Plaintiff, did not want to get divorced for the principal of this case from January 6, 1993 to September of the same month. However, following the day, the Plaintiff, using the Defendant’s department store credit card, sold any clothing, such as bamboo diving, to Nonparty 1 as a gift. On the 22th day of the same month, when the Defendant was informed of this fact, he was released from the Defendant on the 25th day of the same month, and was employed as a restaurant employee, etc., he was employed as an employee from March 22, 1994 to the Madong-dong branch located in Daegu-gu Eup/Myeon from March 22, 1994, and was employed as a multi-party employee on April 25 and on the 29 second day of the same month.

(6) From August 21, 1980, the Defendant had been receiving out-of-the-counter treatments from Daegu City Tol Medical Center as a stable system with an interview and small amount. However, recently, the above symptoms have a lot of symptoms, and thus, it adapts well to the small amount of exemption.

(7) While the instant principal’s 1 needs to care for another’s detailed mind as a mentally-disadvantaged child, the Plaintiff was negligent in fostering the principal of the instant case due to frequent outing and outing, and thereafter, the Defendant’s mother raises the principal of the instant case.

(8) On April 29, 1994, the defendant filed a divorce suit with the court 94d18910 on the ground of the plaintiff's improper act, etc. and is proceeding simultaneously with this case.

(c) Markets:

According to the above facts, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was no longer recovered, and the court of the judgment of this case also accepted the defendant's claim for divorce on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for divorce on the ground of the plaintiff's improper act, etc., and the plaintiff's claim for divorce, which is the spouse mainly responsible for the failure of marriage, shall be deemed as falling under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and the defendant's claim for divorce on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for divorce, who is the spouse mainly responsible for the failure of marriage, shall be deemed as falling under the grounds provided for in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. However, the plaintiff's claim for divorce, which is the spouse, shall not be justified.

2. Division of property;

(a) Facts of recognition;

If the evidence employed earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 and 9-2, and the whole purport of the oral argument, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The plaintiff and the defendant live in three places without any particular property, 300,000 won of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and the plaintiff worked for a company (trade name omitted) operated by the non-party 3, and lived in the defendant's monthly salary around February 1981, he purchased three apartments located in Daegu Seo-gu from the deposit for lease of KRW 1,00,000 and monthly rent of KRW 100,000. Since July 1982, the defendant thereafter purchased the real estate in the name of the non-party 3 in the name of the company (trade name omitted), and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the title of the real estate in the name of the non-party 4 in the name of the non-party 3, 1987, and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the title of the real estate in the name of the defendant 1, 2, 300,000 among the real estate in the name of the non-party 4, 1987.

(2) Meanwhile, in the course of managing the above factory and acquiring each of the instant real estate, the Defendant separately set up the right to collateral on June 24, 1993 with respect to the instant real estate, the Daegu Bank Co., Ltd. and the Japan Bank Co., Ltd. and the Nonparty Co., Ltd., Ltd., as collateral, KRW 450,00,000, the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,000, and the right to collateral on December 2, 1992 and April 12, 1993 with respect to the instant 4,5, and 6 real estate as to the instant 4,540,00, the maximum debt amount of KRW 340,00,000, and KRW 100,000,000.

On the contrary, the plaintiff does not have any property under his name.

(b) Object of division;

As seen earlier, each of the instant real property is owned solely by the Defendant in its appearance on the registry, and the Plaintiff did not have contributed to the acquisition process, but was negligent by the Plaintiff in its maintenance and management process, but has contributed to a certain degree through domestic labor and child rearing. Therefore, each of the instant real property is subject to division of property.

(c) Methods of division of property;

Considering all the circumstances, such as the form and use of the instant property to be divided, the nature of the property subject to division, the Plaintiff’s intent to seek division, and the Defendant’s intent to divide it into cash, it is reasonable to determine the shares to be reverted to the Plaintiff among each of the instant real property and to order the registration of transfer of the said shares. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s contribution to each of the instant real property is 20% of the Plaintiff’s contribution to the formation, maintenance, and preservation of the instant property; the Defendant’s contribution to the formation, maintenance, and preservation of the instant property; the Defendant’s management and acquisition of each of the instant real property in the instant real estate; the secured mortgage and the maximum amount thereof; the secured amount anticipated by such contribution; the secured debt anticipated by the Plaintiff; and the Plaintiff’s living relationship and ability anticipated

Therefore, as a division of property, the defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the division of property on the date of the final judgment with respect to one fifth portion of each of the real estate in this case to the plaintiff.

3. Designation of the exerciseer of parental authority, child care, and child support;

In light of the circumstance and reason leading up to the failure of the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant, the age, custody status of the principal of the case, the degree of the plaintiff and the defendant's difficulties toward the principal of the case, and the economic capacity of each party and other circumstances, it seems that maintaining the present state for the principal of the case and allowing the defendant, the father of the case, to rear the principal of the case, is beneficial to the growth and welfare of the principal of the case. Thus, the defendant shall be designated as the exercise of parental authority and the guardian of the principal of the case, and the application for designation of the plaintiff's exercise of parental authority and the guardian of the principal of the case shall not be accepted, and there is no reason for the claim for child support based on the premise that the plaintiff is designated as the rearing of the principal of the case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case shall be accepted on the ground of the reason, and the division of property and the claim for designation of the person who has parental authority and the person who has parental authority shall be determined as above, and all of the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)