1. Who is the party represented by Barun Law?

We represented a husband who was a defendant and a counterclaim plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant had been married for about 25 years with two children. However, the plaintiff filed a divorce action under Article 840 (3) and (6) of the Civil Code, claiming that the marriage broke down due to the defendant's unfair treatment of her due to differences in religious values and the fact that she was assaulted by the defendant several times. The defendant counterclaimed, claiming that the plaintiff was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. The first instance court accepted the plaintiff's claim and recognized that the defendant was primarily responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. The first instance court ordered a divorce on the plaintiff's complaint and awarded the plaintiff KRW 20 million as alimony.

We were retained to represent the defendant on appeal after he had lost at first instance. Based on numerous consultations with our client and objective evidence, we concluded that rather than unilaterally assigning the responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage to the other party, it was not the fault of either party, but rather that the couple had been in conflict for a long time due to differences in religious values, but that the lack of understanding and consideration by both parties led to the breakdown of the marriage. Therefore, while claiming the breakdown of the marriage due to both parties’ responsibility, we argued that the defendant's alleged assault was in fact the plaintiff's first act of violence, as she became agitated and rushed at the defendant during the course of a couple's quarrel. Contrary to the first trial court's decision, we obtained an appellate judgment that the plaintiff and the defendant were divorced by the main and counterclaims and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for alimony.

In addition, with respect to property division, we argued that the plaintiff had concealed property prior to the filing of the complaint by transferring cash on several occasions, which was not argued in the first trial, and that the cash should be included as active property. The court accepted our argument. With respect to the severance pay that the defendant received when he resigned during the pendency of the lawsuit, we argued that the property acquired with the severance pay was double counted and should be excluded from the active estate. The court agreed with this argument. As such, we were able to obtain a reduction in the amount the defendant owed the plaintiff in the form of a property division.

In the context of marital breakdown, our courts generally prohibit the spouse responsible for the breakdown from filing for divorce. It is important to establish which of the spouses is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage, and it is not easy to change this result on appeal, especially if one of the spouses is found to be responsible for the breakdown of the marriage at first instance. Nevertheless, this case can be seen as a reminder of the importance of a proper litigation strategy, in that we did not argue that one party was not responsible and the other party was responsible, but rather acknowledged some responsibility within a reasonable range and used the contradictions in the other party's arguments without objective evidence to come to the conclusion that both parties were responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.