(영문) 청주지방법원 2015. 8. 24.자 2015브10000 결정[재산분할][미간행]
Claimant
Other Party
Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Ra181 dated December 5, 2014
1. The appeal of this case is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the claimant;
The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The other party shall pay to the claimant a property division of KRW 668 million.
1. Quotation of the trial of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in Article 39(4) of the Family Litigation Act, Articles 224, 443(1), and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The claimant asserts that the waiver of the right to the division of property cannot be deemed as a consultation on the division of property, and that the waiver of the right to the division of property before the marriage is dissolved is invalid, since the claimant’s right to the division of property is not effective.
B. The consultation on the division of property refers to a consultation between the parties who already completed a divorce as to the division of property, which has been achieved through mutual cooperation between the parties during the marriage, or between the parties who have not yet been divorced. In a case where the parties who have not yet been divorced agree to divorce by agreement on the division of property on the premise of such agreement, and where a consultation on the division of property is conducted by agreement as agreed upon by the parties after the consultation, such agreement takes effect (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da5804 delivered on May 8, 2001).
The agreement that the claimant did not claim the division of property also constitutes a consultation on the division of property. Since the claimant agreed to divorce with the other party and agreed not to claim the division of property, and the agreement has been married as agreed by the parties, the above agreement that did not claim the division of property is valid. Therefore, the claimant’s above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the appeal by the claimant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)