[2] The case holding that since Gap and Eul agreed to voluntarily mediate in a prior suit that they will not claim monetary damages, such as division of property, under any pretext in the future, but Gap became aware of the existence of additional property under the name of the other party who was not aware of at the time of the agreement, through the public official's property registration procedure, it is difficult to view that there was a waiver of the right to claim division of property, at least after the previous suit, on the ground that there was a waiver of the right

[2] The case holding that where Party A and Party B agreed not to file a monetary claim, such as division of property, in a prior suit for the future, but Party B came to know the existence of additional property in the name of Party B, which was not known at the time of the agreement, through the public official’s property registration procedure, it is difficult to deem that there was a waiver of the right to claim division of property with respect to property additionally discovered after the prior suit, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was

2. The other party's claim for adjudication shall be dismissed;

3. The costs of a trial shall be borne by the other party in combination with a main trial and a semi-trial trial.

1. In this trial, the other party (hereinafter referred to as "the other party") shall pay to the claimant (the other party to a quasi-trial; hereinafter referred to as "party") a property division, and to the claimant (the other party to a trial; hereinafter referred to as the "party") 1/2 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet at the rate of 36,41,00 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment. The other party shall pay to the claimant the amount of property division at the rate of 2,00,000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

2. Anti-trials: The claimant shall pay to the other party the amount of division of property at the rate of 136,647,938 won and at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the written claim for the anti-trials in this case to the day of full payment.

According to the records of this case and the purport of the whole examination, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The claimant and the other party completed the marriage report on April 1, 1993, and had a legal couple, and had a claimant under the slurbly (the birth of April 12, 1993).

B. The claimant and the other party were to serve as a local public official in the ○○○ District and the other party as an employee of the medical center in the ○ University until September 2005, while managing the applicant’s benefit passbook, the other party raised three children, such as the claimant’s children and the other party’s children and the other party’s children, or used the remaining money for the purpose of re-examination. From October 2005 to December 2007, the claimant transferred the remaining money to the other party by account transfer each of KRW 2,50,000 per month in terms of living expenses, etc. from January 2008 to December 2007.

C. On March 5, 2008, the other party filed a lawsuit against the claimant on the claim for divorce, etc. (the Seoul Family Court Decision 2008Ddan18751, which did not file a claim for division of property). On April 8, 2008, the claimant filed a lawsuit on the claim for divorce, division of property, etc. with the Seoul Family Court Decision 2008Ddan31006, which was the counterclaim, and on April 30, 2008, they became divorced by voluntarily adjusting as described in paragraph (d) below (hereinafter “the principal claim and counterclaim”).

(d) Coordination clause of the previous suit>

(1) An appellant and the other party shall be divorced.

(2) The claimant shall pay 2,00,000 won to the other party by May 30, 2008. If the payment is delayed, the claimant shall pay the unpaid principal plus damages for delay at the rate of 10% per annum.

③ In division of property, the claimant shall be paid KRW 260,00,000 from the other party at the same time, and if the other party is paid KRW 57-103, Jyang-dong, Seoul, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, the other party shall take procedures for registration of ownership transfer based on the division of property on April 30, 2008, and the other party shall pay KRW 260,000,000 to the claimant at the same time when he/she takes the procedure for registration of ownership transfer, and the other party shall pay KRW 260,00,000 to the claimant by May 30, 2008, and if the payment is delayed, damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 10% per annum to the unpaid party.

(4) Omission of provisions concerning designation of persons exercising parental authority over children and children, and payment of child support)

(5) Except as provided above, the claimant and the other party shall not claim monetary money under any pretext, such as consolation money or division of property, in connection with the divorce of this case.

(6) The other party shall waive the remainder of a claim on the principal lawsuit, and the claimant shall waive the remainder of a counterclaim.

(7) Litigation costs and conciliation costs shall be borne by each person.

E. On May 30, 2008, the claimant, with the cooperation of the other party after the judgment of the previous suit, borrowed KRW 260,00,000,000, out of the property division amount of KRW 260,000,00 according to the conciliation under the name of the other party as security. On May 30, 2008, the other party provided a separate apartment in Gwangjin-gu by paying his own money from the financial institution. However, the other party did not receive the remainder of KRW 60,00,000 from the other other party, and still resided with the other party.

F. On February 8, 2009, the claimant was employed as the director of the tax1 division of the ○○○ Tax Office on the ground that he had not completed the divorce report, and reported the property as a person subject to the property registration, but was designated as a bona fide person of the other party on the ground that some property under the name of the other party was not registered on June 20, 209. At the time, there were ① the real estate listed in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) in the name of the defendant, ② the total amount of stocks and deposits deposited in each account of KIKO securities and future deposit securities (hereinafter “instant financial assets”), ③ the real estate listed in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “the instant dry field”).

G. On July 10, 2009, the claimant asserted that the other party concealed the instant commercial buildings, financial assets, dry field, etc. at the transfer site, and filed a claim for the principal trial on the division of property. After that, the other party should add retirement allowances to be received immediately by the claimant and officetels under the name of his/her father, etc. as the subject of the division of property, and filed a claim for the division of property through a reflect trial.

2. Main Safety Determination

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

As long as the other party becomes aware of the concealment of the property in the process of registering the property of a public official, the claimant filed a claim for the division of property by filing a judgment with respect to the concealed property, and the other party filed a claim for the division of property by asserting that the division of property ought to be completed. As such, the conciliation on the division of property was established in the previous lawsuit, and thus, the agreement on the division of property was reached, and thus, the instant claim for a division of property is unlawful. If the division of property is conducted, the claimant’s property

B. Determination

In a case where an additional property is found after a trial on whether the property is subject to division in a trial on the case of property division, where an additional property is found after a final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Meu582, Feb. 28, 2003). Likewise, even if an agreement on property division has been reached, if an additional property is discovered other than the property subject to division, it may also be subject to the claim for property division, if an additional property is found.

However, if the judgment was held prior to the division of property but the decision was completed early by the agreement of the parties without voluntary conciliation or settlement in full due to the agreement of the parties, if it is interpreted as the property which was not examined in the previous trial and all of the additionally discovered property, there might be concerns that the purport of the mediation system by which the provisions of the mediation system by which the parties to the lawsuit would be formally added to the dispute early. On the other hand, even if the property is found later, if it is interpreted impossible to claim the additional division of property pursuant to the above mediation provision, it might be abused by the parties who intend to conceal the common property, so it would be reasonable to limit the interpretation that the parties would not claim the amount of money such as the division of property in the previous trial as in the instant case, not to interpret the language and text as it is, but to limit the interpretation that the right to claim the division of property would not be expected at the time of the agreement to be subject to the division of property. In other words, the above agreement cannot be effective with respect to the other party's property that could not have been predicted.

In this case, according to the records of this case, the claimant or the other party agreed not to file a monetary claim, such as division of property, under any pretext in the prior suit. However, the claimant can only recognize the existence of additional property under the name of the other party who did not know at the time of the contract as above through the public official's property registration procedure. According to the above facts, at least after the prior suit, the right to claim division of property should be allowed since it is not deemed that there was waiver of the right to claim division of property. (However, it is reasonable to determine whether the property could have been predicted as the object of division of property in the prior suit, so it is reasonable to determine whether it is the property that could have been predicted as the object of division of property, and it is reasonable to determine whether it is the object of division of property

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the other party’s defense to the effect that the claim for division of property of this case is not permissible is groundless.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Object of division of property and the principle of computing the value thereof;

If a party, who has been divorced, seeks a division of the property created by the cooperation of both parties during marriage, the division of the property shall, in principle, be calculated based on the time when the marriage relationship between the parties has been actually terminated. In this case, the property division subject to division and its value should be calculated based on April 30, 2008, which is the date when the divorce lawsuit is concluded between the claimant and the other

(b) Determination of property to be divided;

(1) Main Trial

(A) According to each of the above facts, the commercial buildings, financial assets, and dry field of this case did not have been examined at all at all at all at all at all at all at all, and was discovered after the result of the previous lawsuit was finalized, and it is recognized that the claimant was difficult for the other party to make it difficult for the other party to have held each of such properties during the entire trial process. Therefore, in light of the time of acquisition and amount of each property, it is reasonable to view that each of them is subject to division of property as common property acquired during the marriage period (in the case of financial property, it would have been discovered if it would have been analyzed closely by making inquiries about the fact at all financial institutions, but in ordinary

Examining the value of each of the above property at the time of division of property, since the market value was not assessed, it is reasonable to view the commercial buildings of this case as the amount of the claimant's amount, namely, the amount of 263,674,925 won [=236,474,700 won = 71.69 square meters x 1 square meters per 1 square meter as of January 1, 2008 + 27,200,225 won] in calculating the value based on the current market value of the building nearest 208 individual land price (as of January 1, 2008) and the current market value of the building, etc. which was recorded in the records of this case. As to the dry field of this case, unless the market value was assessed, the remaining amount of 125,000,000 won at the time of acquisition by the other party shall be the value of the dry field of this case's financial property at the time of purchase.

The other party asserts that the dry field and the commercial building of this case should be assessed in accordance with the officially assessed individual land price, not the purchase price of the other party, and that the dry field of this case and the commercial building of this case should be assessed in the same way as the commercial building of this case, so the same method of assessment should not be used in recognizing the value of the property subject to division of property. Thus, the most reasonable method of assessment should be used by considering the evidence and overall purport of the examination submitted by the parties for each property. Even if there are special circumstances where it is difficult to be recognized in light of all circumstances even if the value can be determined by the specific method, such as the publicly notified price, it can be corrected by such special circumstance. According to the records, according to the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 207, the value of the dry field of this case should be assessed in accordance with the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 207, but it is difficult to recognize it as being excessive from 200,000 won to 20,000 won.

(B) As to this, the other party’s dry field and financial assets of this case were established in August 2007, when they were married, as retirement allowances, etc. received by the other party while voluntarily retired from ○ University Medical Center. Since retirement allowances of the other party could have been already examined or deliberated during the pre-trial trial, it cannot be subject to division of property of this case. However, the evidence presented by the other party alone cannot be readily concluded that each of the above assets was prepared as retirement allowances, etc., without merit.

Furthermore, the other party asserts that it should be calculated as a joint obligation because he/she had a Masp loan in the other party's benefit account at the time of the mediation in the prior suit, but it cannot be viewed as a property unexpected at the time of the prior suit or a property newly discovered, and thus, it is rejected.

(C) Sub-committee theory: both the instant commercial buildings and financial assets in the name of the other party are recognized as subject to division of property.

(2) Anti-Adjudication

(A) On December 31, 2010, the claimant is expected to retire, and his retirement lump sum of retirement benefits to be received at the time of retirement is determined as KRW 259,816,200, and it is the subject of the division of property. Thus, on April 30, 2008, it is reasonable to view that the retirement benefits to be received by the claimant at the time of the mediation was not determined in the future. However, even if it is, it was possible to determine the number and method of division by taking this into account (see Supreme Court Decision 96Meu153,1540, Mar. 14, 1997). According to the foregoing, the other party at the time of the mediation in the previous lawsuit did not know that the claimant would receive retirement benefits after 23 years from the time of retirement and did not know that he would receive the retirement benefits in the future, and thus, it is difficult to expect the other party's claim for division of property as a property.

(B) Next, the claimant asserts that the above officetels should be included in the property division because the above officetels is the property of the claimant's title trust, but the evidence recorded in the records of this case is difficult to recognize this part of the claimant's wife's claim. Thus, this part of the claim is without merit.

(C) No lawsuit: The property in the name of the claimant, which is deemed subject to division of property.

(c) Division ratio of property;

The ratio of division of property shall be 50% of the claimant and 50% of the other party in consideration of various circumstances, such as the process of forming each co-property of the claimant and the other party, the degree of contribution to the formation and maintenance of property of the claimant and the other party, and the age, marriage period, etc. of the claimant and the other party.

(d) Method and amount of division of property;

Each of the above property, which is the subject of division of property, belongs to the other party as at present, and it is reasonable to determine that the other party pays in cash the amount to be reverted to the claimant according to the ratio of

Therefore, the other party is obligated to pay to the claimant 195,189,531 won [=265,379,062 won = 263,674,925 + 125,00,000 + 1,704,137 won + 0.5] and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the claimant's claim for division of property shall be determined as above, and the other party's claim for division of property shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List: omitted

Judges Egropi (Presiding Judge)