[1] The standard for determining whether the property was contributed to the formation and maintenance of the property in the division of property

[2] The case rejecting the claim for the division of property of a person who consumes property more than the degree of contribution on the basis of the actual state of property at the time of the commencement of divorce

[1] Division of property following divorce is divided into property formed or maintained by the joint efforts of each husband and wife during the marriage life according to their respective contributions. Thus, in a case where there is no room for joint efforts or contributions, division of property cannot be recognized. Whether such joint efforts or contributions have been made or contributed depends not on whether the marital relationship has been maintained simply, but on the basis of the actual condition of marital life.

[2] The case rejecting the claim for the division of property of one spouse who consumed the case on the ground that the marital relationship had existed more than the first time of birth at the time of birth at the time of the first birth and the first time of the birth and the second time of birth and had not been able to get any particular help in the formation or maintenance of each other's property during that period, and the first time of birth at the time of the second time after the divorce, the division of property following the divorce should not be based upon the time of the establishment of the divorce, but shall be based on the property status of the other party's property at the time of birth, and therefore, one party has been able to contribute to the formation and maintenance of the other party's property.

[1] [2] Article 839-2 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Other Party

1. The claimant's claim is dismissed.

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

The other party shall pay 70,000,000 won to the claimant.

1. Family relationship;

According to Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4-4 and 12, the claimant and the other party are legally married couple who completed a marriage report on May 31, 1968, and have 1 South and North son's children among them, and the divorce mediation is established on February 16, 1994.

2. A summary of the claimant's assertion;

The claimant asserts that, during the marriage period between the claimant and the other party, the applicant operates the beauty room as a side business, while actively contributed to the resale of the apartment, etc., the claimant is liable to pay 70,000,000 won out of the value of the above real estate as a division of property.

3. Determination

A. Facts of recognition

The facts of Gap evidence 2, Gap 3's 1, 2, 2 Eul's 1, 6, 7 Eul's 1 and 9's 1 and 1 and 2's testimony (excluding the part rejected from each of the above testimony) that were 0 others' 1 and 0 others' 10 others' 1 and 9' 10 others' 10 others' 1 and 9' 0 others' 10 others' 10 others' 1 and 9' 10 others' 10 others' 9' 10 others' 1 and 0 others' 9' 10 others' 1' 6 others' 9' 10 others' 1' 10 others' 1' 10 others' 1' 6 others' 1' 10 others' 1' 10 others' 1' 6 others' 1' 10 others' 1' 10 others' 1' 10 others' 6 others' 1' 7 others' 1' 2 others' 2 others' 1' 1.

(b) Markets:

(1) The division of property following divorce is divided into the property formed or maintained by the joint efforts of the couple during the marriage life according to their respective contributions. Thus, in a case where there is no room for joint efforts or contributions, division of property may not be recognized. Whether such joint efforts or contributions have been made or contributed depends not on whether a formal marital relationship has been maintained, but on the basis of the actual state of the couple’s community life.

According to the above facts, the marital relationship between the claimant and the other party was terminated by the divorce mediation as of February 16, 1994, but in substance, from October 1, 1986, the claimant was first released by the claimant for the first time to November 1, 1986, the applicant was temporarily removed from his/her separate status and living together for the period from May 1, 1989 to temporarily resolving his/her separate status, but he/she did not have any particular help to form or maintain each other's property during that period. Since the claimant again returned from the second place, the division of property according to the divorce between the claimant and the other party continued to move separately, not based on the time the divorce is formed, but on the basis of the property status of the other party at the time of the first place of birth where the claimant had been able to contribute to the formation and maintenance of the other party's property, the division of property by divorce between the claimant and the other party should be determined.

However, according to the above facts, the property held by the claimant and the other party around October 1986 shall be the entire amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 and retirement allowance of KRW 18,000 due to the other party's teachers' retirement. The degree of contribution by the claimant to the formation and maintenance of the property shall be 50% in light of the status of married life with the other party. Since the claimant has the total amount of the above retirement allowance corresponding to most of the above property and has consumed it again, it would result in more property than the degree of contribution of the claimant, it shall be deemed that the other party cannot seek a division of property against the other party.

(2) The claimant seems to have asserted that the other party should be the object of division of property, since the claimant's contribution to the common life of the married couple is based on the acquisition of the real estate of this case by the other party.

However, the fact that the other party acquired the instant real estate from April 1993 to January 1, 1995 as loans and loans, etc., much later than the beginning of a separate dwelling with the claimant is also identical as recognized earlier. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a contribution by the claimant to acquire or maintain the said real estate. Therefore, the above argument is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

If so, on the premise that the claimant contributed to the acquisition and maintenance of the real estate of this case, the claim of this case by the claimant seeking division of property is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it shall be judged as per the disposition.

Judges Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)