[2] The validity of an agreement to waive the right to claim a division of property premised on divorce (effective)

[2] Even if there are special circumstances, such as where one party gave up the other party the right to claim a division of property before one party reaches a certain stage of divorce due to the failure of the marital relationship’s name, barring special circumstances such as where one party gives up the other party’s right to claim a division of property before the other party reaches a certain stage of divorce, if the party who caused the failure of the marriage agreed to waive the right to claim a division of property on the premise of the agreement divorce, such agreement shall not be deemed null and void as a conditional declaration

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1752 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1752)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

2. The cost of a trial shall be borne by the claimant.

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3, 4, 6, Gap evidence 10-2, Gap evidence 10-13, the investigation report prepared by the investigator of the party members, and the result of the questioning of the claimant himself (Provided, That the records of evidence No. 13 and the part which is not believed below among the result of the questioning of the claimant himself, are excluded) and there is no counter-proof.

(1) The claimant and the other party filed a marriage report on May 12, 1980, but on March 4, 1994, upon the confirmation of divorce, they reported divorce on May 3, 199.

(2) The claimant has been engaged in household affairs such as childcare after marriage, and the other party has passed the police examination around 1980 and has been working as a police officer after marriage.

(3) On April 18, 1991, the other party purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet by aggregating money and agricultural loans, etc. for that period, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the other party on July 18, 1991.

B. Although the above real estate is under the sole name of the other party in its external appearance, it shall be supported by the claimant's effort to cooperate in the formation, maintenance, and preservation of the above property due to family work after marriage, etc., and thus, it shall be substantially divided into two co-property. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, they should have already been divorced.

C. The claimant can receive retirement benefits if the other party retires in the future. Thus, in division of property in the case of this case, the other party's claim that such future retirement benefits should be divided until the other party's retirement benefits expected to be received. However, in the absence of special circumstances such as where one party has worked in the workplace without retirement, his retirement date and retirement benefits to be received are determined, it cannot be included in the property subject to liquidation solely on the ground that the possibility of receiving a long-term retirement benefits exists. However, this is merely one of the reasons that can be considered in determining the method, degree, amount, etc. of division when other properties are divided. Thus, the claimant's claim above is without merit.

2. Waiver of the right to claim division of property;

As the claimant and the other party have agreed to waive the right to claim division of property in the agreement on divorce, the other party's written evidence Nos. 4, 6, 13, and Eul Nos. 1 (Evidence No. 1) are presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document since the claimant's signature and unmanned part is recognized. The claimant has no evidence to the effect that the other party voluntarily entered the other party's right to claim division of property in the margin of this document, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. However, in full view of the whole purport of the argument, the claimant has been discovered to the other party since it entered the non-party No. 1 and No. 2 from around 193, and the other party has agreed to waive the right to claim division of property. On December 18, 1993, the claimant and the other party liable for raising property in the name of the other party without question shall not waive the claimant's right to claim division of property in the name of the other party, and there is no special circumstance between the claimant and the other party's right to claim division of property division.

In regard to this, the claimant asserts that the agreement on the waiver of the above claim for division of property is null and void since it was prior to divorce. However, even if there are special circumstances, such as where one party would have renounced the claim for division of property against the other party at the time of the time when the divorce between the parties would take place with the intention of divorce due to the failure of marriage, barring special circumstances, if the parties agreed to waive the claim for division of property on the premise of the agreement to divorce by agreement, such agreement shall be deemed null and void as it is a conditional declaration of intention on the condition that the divorce procedure would be effective, as agreed by the parties. Therefore, the claimant's

3. Conclusion

If so, the petitioner's request for a trial of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it shall be judged as per Disposition.

Judges Spanpo-pon (Presiding Judge)