A Gunsan Divorce Attorney Assistance Case | With the Assistance of a Gunsan Divorce Attorney, a Claim for Consolation Money Was Dismissed and the Division of Marital Property Was Reduced by Half

The Gunsan divorce attorney listened to the background of how the client came to be in divorce litigation with his wife.

The client was in serious conflict with his wife, the plaintiff. The grounds for conflict asserted by the plaintiff were that the relationship between the client and his mother was excessively close, and a difference in values regarding control of household finances.

In the end, the two had been living apart for more than 3 years, and serious conversation or communication aimed at restoring their relationship had broken down.

Accordingly, the plaintiff judged that the marital relationship had broken down and proceeded with divorce litigation.

However, the client could not accept at all the consolation money and division of marital property claimed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserted the client's dependence on his mother and his indifference toward the household as grounds for fault.

Moreover, the amount of division of marital property proposed by the plaintiff had been calculated without taking into account the sum the client had previously paid to the plaintiff. The client therefore judged that it would be advisable to proceed with the divorce litigation with the assistance of an attorney specializing in this area, and

the client came to request the help of Daeryun's Gunsan divorce attorney.

■ Grounds for Judicial Divorce

▣ Article 840 of the Civil Act provides the following as grounds for judicial divorce.

The plaintiff presented, as grounds for divorce, detailed and minor feelings of resentment toward the client and the client's mother.

The plaintiff argued that the mother-in-law's affection in cherishing her son, the client, when viewed ‘solely from the standpoint of a daughter-in-law,’ amounted to ‘receiving unfair treatment’ as provided under Article 840 of the Civil Act.

However, it was argued that these were merely the plaintiff's one-sided feelings of resentment and could not constitute a cause sufficient to bring about the breakdown of the marital relationship.

After the plaintiff left home without notice, the parties began living apart, and following the separation the plaintiff told the client that she would proceed with divorce unless he paid her 100 million won. The client, who did not want a divorce, paid 100 million won in an effort to change the plaintiff's mind.

It was therefore argued that this sum should be deducted as an advance payment toward the division of marital property.

The plaintiff claimed consolation money, presenting the client's neglect of the household and lack of financial ability as the reasons for the breakdown of the marriage.

However, it was argued that, in fact, it was the plaintiff who had wasted living expenses throughout the marriage on excessive hobbies and who had thereby neglected the children's care.

By contrast, it was argued that the client had done his utmost in economic activity for the sake of the household, continuing to work at his job while also taking on a second job.