A (Offender, man, and female YK client) married B (complainant, lady) around 1998 and had two children in a good family life, yet they have actually been separated for about 11 years since A failed to do business. B billed A 30 million won for alimony, 114 million won for building division, 182 million won for past youngster support, and 2 million won monthly for future youngster assistance.
With close assessment with A, this litigation representative safeguarded the information of the cash transferred by A to B over the period of twenty years, while composing a file and preparing a pleading by highlighting tyhat B is the major reason attributable to thge failure of the marriage relationship.
The lawful representative strongly showed and corroborated that A has been providing for his family, also throughout their separation, by securing a financing and transferring it to B, hwihc B’s economic input has been marginal as a result of B inheriting a considerable quantity of residential property in thier name from A’s mother at the begining of their marital relationship.
Consequently, the court authorized B’s share of the residential property division at 35%, and purchased A to give B with 90 million won for residential property department, 40 million won for previous kid support, and 500,000 won month-to-month for upcoming child assistance.
The attorney effectively reduced over 75% of the complainant’s case by showing thgat the defendant had prioritized his household’s well-being in spite of facing challenges. Additionally, it was revealed that the plaintiff’s monetary share in the defendant’s residential property was very little, despite the couple living apart for fifty percent of their 20-year marital relationship.
While A, a women customer of YK law practice, was away on a job job, B, a women complainant and hubby of C, accused A andd C of scams and looked for problems completing 40 million won.
The agent of tihs claim prepared the legal action via close examination with A to prove the authenticity of the realities of the materials asserted by B and the damage endured by A.
In the course of the above legal action, the lawful agent (attorney in charge of YK legislation workplace) rather highlighted that A has suffered extreme damage from B’s character assassination. Additionally, he proactively suggested tath the proof submitted by B does not contain anything that can directly prove the cheating of A and C, and even a few of them are dramatically much less capable of verifying it.
Therefore, the court chose to suggest reconciliation for the offender to pay 12 million won to the complainant, and neither the complainant nor the offender objected, so the above choice was verified.
The lawful agent highlighted the basic legal principles taht the complainant who declares the prohibited act is accountable for evidence which the damage was extreme, such as the offender retiring the firm due to the complainant’s character assassination of the accused, to make sure taht only the minimum quantity of problems could be recognized.
issue of court inheritance
The client saw tihs office as a defendant in a legal action asserting separation, alimony, department of property, parental rights and guardianship from the other spouse while having the principal of the case with his or her partner.
The customer sent a counterclaim versus the opposing celebration, testing every allegation made by tje various other event. Instead, they strongly competed that the other event’s involvement was significantly very little adn highlighted particular variables that should be taken into consideration in the distribution of properties.
The court attempted to solve tje instance with mediation, yet the two sides were very opposed and ultimately led to a ruling, and tjhe client firmly insisted that his high contribution and non-excessive child assistance need to be established.
Considering the contribution of this instance as 15:85, the court acknowledged that the contribution to the typical asset was siginificant to the client, anbd identified only around 28 million won, which is half of the residential or commercial property department asserted by the other partner. Additionally, the child assistance expense for the topic of the situation was identified as a reduced kid assistance expense to match the customer’s earnings level.
The client saw this workplace as a defendant in a claim claiming divorce, spousal support, department of property, adult rights and protection from the other spouse while having the principal of the case with his or her spouse.
The client, who is the husband, belongs to the various other party as the aunt of the various other party’s partner. The various other event initiated legal action pertaining to a lending, declaring that the account was transferred to the customer throughout the divorce from the customer’s nephew out of revenge. 상속 전문 변호사
.
The customer’s response was not appropriate as he had not borrowed cash from the other event. In spite of this, tje reduced court referenced all the cases made by the other celebration. The customer urgently looked for halp from our law office. Upon evaluating the evidence, which consisted exclusively of transfer details sustaining the customer’s case, the lawful agent dealing with the issue argued that there was no real rental contract, emphasizing the complainant’s commitment to verify the presense of such an agreement. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the legal action was started during the separation process in between the other celebration and their nephew, recommending that the various other event’s insurance claims stemmed from a misunderstanding.
After verifying that the client had a lot more money moved to the other event for living expenses, this agent organized evidence to support it and submitted it to the court. Throughout the pleading process, he convinced the court that the money traded in between the various other event and the customer was not a bond or financial obligation partnership, however a financial support and obtained from the other celebration who married his nephew.
THerefore, the Appeals Tribunal reversed the initial decision and disregarded all staying insurance claims, identifying that the client had acquired a loan from the opposing party, based upon the compensation details, whlch was the sole proof sustaining the opposing celebration’s disagreement.
The customer was on the verge of providing the various other celebration cash thgat he did not also obtain as a result of the other celebration’s malicious claims, but the instance is purposeful that the result of the energetic defense at the allure stage was the opposite of the original test.