(b) The case holding that special property shall be the object of division of property on the ground that, in case where participation in miscellaneous video management exclusively in accounting duties at miscellaneous video chain stores opened for 24 hours as household business and cooperates in raising family expenses, a certain amount of contribution has been made to prevent the decrease of special property; and

(b) The case holding that if miscellaneous video chain stores, other than those exclusively responsible for household affairs, participate in accounting affairs at 24 hours' miscellaneous video chain stores and cooperates in raising household expenses, it can be deemed that certain contributions have been made to prevent the decrease of special property, and the special property is subject to division of property.

Each costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. As to the Defendant’s first ground of appeal

The court below acknowledged the facts based on its adopted evidence, and found that the defendant was unable to live a normal sexual couple's life due to the unknown cause from the marriage with the plaintiff, and thereafter, the defendant was negligent in making treatment by ascertaining the cause of marriage even though 13 years have not passed since the marriage due to the urology and disorder in circumstance and function of urology, so long as the defendant was negligent in making treatment by grasping the cause, this constitutes a cause of judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and it is just in light of the records and relevant evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle, such as the theory of litigation.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. As to the defendant's second ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below, which is the object of division of property, is identical to the theory of lawsuit on special property donated by the defendant's parents before the marriage, but even if the property is unique property, if other parties actively cooperate in the maintenance of the unique property and prevented the reduction thereof or cooperate in the increase thereof, it can be the object of division of property (see Supreme Court Decision 92Meu501 delivered on May 25, 1993). According to the records, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff participated in the above miscellaneous video management with the defendant while taking full charge of the accounting affairs at the time of operating the miscellaneous video chain store opened for 24 hours as family business in the United States, and has contributed to the prevention of the reduction of family expenses. Thus, the judgment of the court below which is the object of division of property is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no merit in the conclusion on this point.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The court below's decision is just in light of the record that the property subject to division of property by its adopted evidence is determined as real estate listed in the attached list of the court below's judgment and its value is recognized as stated in its decision, and that the theory of lawsuit was rejected, consistent with the argument that the property subject to division of property exists, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit.

4. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The amount of consolation money and the amount of division of property recognized by the court below is recognized as a considerable amount in light of various circumstances as stated by the court below, and even if the circumstances of the theory of lawsuit are considered, each amount is too small and unfair, so it cannot be said that there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as the theory of lawsuit

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)