Whether the real estate purchased based on the sale price of the real estate owned by the father can not be the object of division of property solely on the sole basis that it is a real estate

Even if a site was purchased on the basis of the sales price of a house owned by the father of the father which was the object of division of property, such circumstance alone does not obstruct the recognition of “property created by mutual cooperation between the father and the father”. Even if a family affairs is considered as a property unique to the father after marriage, so long as the wife actively and indirectly contributed to the procurement of household labor and household expenses, thereby preventing the reduction of special property.

Articles 843, and 839-2 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Reu293 delivered on April 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first point

Even if the land pointing out of the real estate owned by the Defendant, which is the object of division of property, was purchased on the basis of the sale price of the house owned by the Defendant’s father, such circumstance alone cannot be an obstacle to recognizing that the above site is “property created through cooperation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,” and even if it is considered as the Defendant’s unique property, as recognized by the lower court, so long as the Plaintiff directly and indirectly contributed to the Plaintiff’s active and unconstitutional procurement of household labor and household expenses when the Plaintiff acquired and maintained it after marriage, thereby preventing the reduction of the above unique property, it shall be subject to division of property. Accordingly, the lower court’s decision that is the object of division of property is right and wrong, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the division of property as set out in the theory of lawsuit, as otherwise alleged.

2. On the second ground

Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s decision that the Plaintiff contributed actively to the acquisition and maintenance of real estate which is the object of division of property in this case is acceptable, and there is no error of law. The reasoning for this argument is without merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)