2. The Defendant’s division of property to the Plaintiff

(a)payment of 237,00,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from the day this judgment became final to the day of full payment;

B. On the last day of each month the Defendant paid 30% of the public official’s pension amount that the Defendant received from the day following the date of this judgment to the day before the Defendant’s death.

3. All remaining appeals by the Plaintiff and the Defendant are dismissed.

4. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

5. Paragraph 2 (a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced (the conciliation was concluded on March 20, 2012 with respect to the claim for divorce of this case). The defendant shall pay 30,00,000 won as consolation money and 20% per annum to the plaintiff, and shall pay 432,535,983 won as division of property and 20% per annum to the day of full payment from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. The amount calculated by the rate of 95,013,695 won as lump sum payment of retirement pension and 20% per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment (the plaintiff extended the claim for division of property at the trial) as retirement pension (the plaintiff extended the claim for division of property at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiff: Revocation of the part against Plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, and seek a judgment such as the description of the purport of the claim.

Defendant: The part against Defendant among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against that part is dismissed.

The Plaintiff filed a claim for divorce, consolation money, and division of property, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and the conciliation was concluded on March 20, 2012 at the date of the mediation of the first instance court, and thus, the Plaintiff will consider only the claim for consolation money and the division of property.

2. Determination on the claim of consolation money

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this in accordance with the main text of Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the claim for division of property

(a) Details of the formation of property;

(1) From March 1991 to August 192, 192, the Plaintiff, who had been married with the Defendant, operated a beauty room in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. From September 1989, 198, the beauty room operated in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, was discontinued on September 1995 after the marriage, and was in exclusive charge of domestic affairs without any particular economic activity.

(2) Since February 25, 1977, the plaintiff and the defendant received benefits as police officers from February 25, 1977, and after they retired on June 30, 2006, they received public officials pension of KRW 2,128,600 from July 7, 2006 to June 2, 2006.

(3) On November 1990, prior to marriage with the Plaintiff, the Defendant sold “Seongnam-si Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Sungnam-si” and paid most of the sales prices to the Defendant’s wages and savings, etc. until February 1993.

(b) Property and value to be divided;

(a) Property to be divided: as shown in the detailed list of the attached property to be divided; and

(2) The value of the property to be divided;

(a) Plaintiff’s net property: 12,871,534 won;

(B) The defendant's net property: 822,042,546 won

(C) Total amount of net property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant: 834,914,080 won

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 4 and 12 1, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 12, response to each order to submit financial transaction information, fact-finding results on the Public Official Pension Management Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion and judgment on this issue

(1) The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

(A) The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant was employed as a police officer from February 25, 197, and received 49,540,390 won as retirement allowance on June 30, 2006, and thereafter received 2,128,600 won as retirement allowance from July 2006, and the retirement allowance and retirement pension that the defendant received shall also be included in the subject of division of property." The plaintiff asserted that "The above retirement allowance and retirement pension already received shall be included in the subject of division of property." This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it appears that the above retirement allowance and retirement pension were used as the living expenses of the plaintiff and the defendant during their marital life, the purchase price of the shares currently owned by the defendant, and the defendant's living expenses after the separation.

(B) The plaintiff asserts that "the pension of KRW 2,128,600 per month that the defendant will receive every month from the Government Employees Pension Corporation shall also be subject to division of property," and the defendant asserts that " insofar as the name of the defendant cannot be determined, it shall not be included in the property division."

As to the public official pension (retirement Pension), ① the public official pension has the nature of entitlement to social security benefits and the post-paid wage at the same time; ② the public official pension has received retirement benefits in lump sum, despite the possibility of property division in the case of receiving it in the form of a lump sum, it is unreasonable that the same property cannot be included or included in the property division at the recipient’s option. ③ The Defendant was able to lead a public official’s livelihood based on the Plaintiff’s internal provision, and was able to receive the retirement pension even if it is difficult to determine the amount, and the retirement pension is excluded from the property division subject to the retirement pension (which is not sufficient to be considered as the grounds for property division). ④ As to the benefits of old age pension under the National Pension Act, the public official pension should be considered as the object of property division in full view of the balance with the pension amount equivalent to the marriage period (Article 64 of the National Pension Act).

Meanwhile, according to Article 43-2(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, the amount of pension benefits is to increase or decrease every year the amount equivalent to the national consumer price fluctuation rate of the previous year compared to that of the year immediately preceding the year immediately preceding the year publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea pursuant to Article 3 of the Statistics Act. Therefore, the method of division is to determine that the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s property division ratio out of the retirement pension paid every month from the time the Defendant

(2) Defendant’s assertion and judgment

(A) The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff who is mainly responsible for the failure of marriage cannot file a claim for division of property." However, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff is mainly responsible for the failure of marriage, and even if so, it is merely an assertion that there is no ground irrelevant to the right to claim division of property. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(B) The defendant asserts that "the apartment of the Sungnam-si branch of the division of property ( Address omitted) is not subject to division of property with the unique property acquired before marriage with the plaintiff." Thus, according to the defendant's argument, the above apartment can be subject to division of property in case where the plaintiff actively prevented the reduction of property or cooperates in the increase of property, even though the above apartment is the defendant's unique property, if the plaintiff actively cooperates in the maintenance of the unique property. The plaintiff is deemed to have been in full charge of family affairs as the family head while carrying out a real marital life for about 15 years from around 1992 to 2008, and has contributed directly and indirectly to the maintenance of the above apartment. Therefore, the above apartment is subject to division of property, and the defendant's assertion against this is not rejected.

(C) The defendant asserts that "The plaintiff's 41,331,704 won of the Korean Commercial Securities Account (Account No. 1 omitted) and 5,00,918 won of the Korean Commercial Securities Account (Account No. 2 omitted), and 7,728,725 won of the future deposit account (Account No. 3 omitted) shall not be disbursed for the married life with the defendant, so it shall be subject to division of property." Thus, the property subject to division in the judicial divorce and its amount shall be determined on the basis of the date of the closing of arguments at the fact-finding court. Even if the plaintiff consumeds the property due to living expenses of only one spouse after the couple began to be separated, the property already consumed may not be subject to division of property. However, in light of the circumstances that can be presumed to be held in any other form by disposing of the property between the date of closing of fact-finding proceedings after the separation, the plaintiff's assertion that the above property is not subject to division of property or the above type of property cannot be accepted as the plaintiff's property.

(D) As of August 25, 201, the Defendant asserted that “as of August 25, 201, the Plaintiff held 400 shares of the arche Automobile among the shares owned by the Defendant in the Samsung Securities account, and deposit deposit remains in 42,300 won, and the assessed amount of the Defendant’s total shares and deposit received shall be KRW 151,502,30.” The Defendant held 1,000 shares of the arche Automobile as of April 19, 201, 30 shares of the Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd., 300 shares of the Hyundai Co., Ltd., 20, 300 shares of the Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd., 1,363,366 shares and deposit received at the 1,363,360 shares, as of August 25, 2011, the value of the said shares decreased at the price at the 20th day of the closing of the argument in the lower court as of property division.

(E) The Defendant asserted that “The amount of the national bank’s beneficiary certificate account No. 13 of the Defendant’s active property list No. 13 (Account No. 4 omitted) to purchase 400 (30,400,000) stocks of the Plaintiff stated in the above list No. 2 as the money.” Thus, the Defendant asserted that “the amount of the national bank beneficiary certificate account No. 13 should be KRW 8,300,000, excluding KRW 30,400,000,000, excluding KRW 30,400,000,” the Defendant’s statement No. 11 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the said 400 shares of the Plaintiff with the money deposited from the above beneficiary certificate account, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

(1) Division ratio of property

Comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the following: (a) the process of property formation recognized above; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant are remarried (the Defendant is de facto remarried); (c) the actual period of marital life of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not less than 15 years; (d) the instant apartment house is acquired before marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (e) most of the other property is formed as the Defendant’s wage; (e) the Defendant has paid considerable profits through investment in stocks; (e) the Plaintiff has no other property; and (e) the division of property following divorce includes not less than the amount of common property liquidation but less than the amount of the marital property liquidation; and (e) there is a need to take into account the support factors of the Plaintiff, who became the main father of the family during most marital life; and (e) it is reasonable to determine the ratio of property division to the Plaintiff

(2) Method of division of property

(A) Part other than the Public Official Pension (Retirement Pension)

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is a need to simply and clearly clarify legal relations arising from divorce; (b) the form and holding of property subject to division; and (c) the intent of the parties, etc., the method of division of property is to vest the positive property under the name of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the negative property in the current title holder; and (c) thereby, it is reasonable

【Calculation Form】

① The Plaintiff’s share according to the division of property among the Plaintiff and Defendant’s net property

: 834,914,080 won in total of net property of the plaintiff and the defendant ¡¿ 30% = 250,474,224 won in total of net property of the plaintiff and the defendant

(2) Amount under paragraph (1) after deducting the Plaintiff’s net property.

: 250,474,224 - 12,871,534 won = 237,602,690 won

③ Division of property that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff:

② KRW 237,00,000,000,000 for a little amount of money stated in the above paragraph

(B) Part of the Public Official Pension (Retirement Pension)

It is reasonable to pay 30% of the retirement pension to be paid each month until the defendant dies at the end of each month.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 237,00,000 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day this judgment became final to the day of full payment, and 30% interest per month paid to the Defendant.

(f)Attachment of a declaration of provisional execution;

The right to claim division of property under the Civil Act arises only when one of the parties to a divorce has a right to claim division of property against the other party, and the divorce has been established at the time of the establishment of the divorce. As such, inasmuch as a divorce judgment has not become final and conclusive even in cases where the parties to a divorce lawsuit and the court rendered a judgment ordering division of property at the same time as the divorce, provisional execution cannot be allowed at that time (Supreme Court Decision 98Meu1193 delivered on November 13, 1998). However, as long as the marital relationship has already been terminated between the parties before the judgment on division of property, the right to claim division of property has already occurred at the time when the marital relationship is terminated, and as long as the other party has already received a claim for division of property, in principle, a provisional execution order should be added to a judgment on the other party’s claim for division of property after the marital relationship is terminated. Meanwhile, Article 42(1) of the Family Litigation Act provides that a provisional execution order can be ordered as stipulated in Article 29(1)2(b) of the Family Litigation Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is dismissed as it is without merit, and as to the claim for division of property, it is reasonable to determine it as above, and as to the claim for division of property, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair. Therefore, the part of the claim for division of property in the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above,

[Attachment]

Judge Jeong Jong-won (Presiding Judge)