Property owned by one spouse whose presumption of special property has been reversed

Property acquired by one of the married couple in his name in the marriage shall be presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, but when the other or both parties have proved to have acquired the property by bearing the consideration for the said property, the presumption of special property shall be reversed, and it shall be deemed to be owned by the other or to be owned by both parties.

Article 830 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1338 (Gong1986, 1300) (Law No.1380, Oct. 23, 1990)

Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant General Law Firm, Attorneys Seo Young-ro et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na47392 delivered on March 20, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Property acquired by one of the married couple in his name in the marriage shall be presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, but when it is proved that the other or both parties have gained the property by bearing the price for the property, the presumption of special property shall be reversed, and it shall be deemed to be owned by the other or to be owned by both parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu5624, Oct. 23, 1990; 85Meu137, 1338, Sept. 9, 1986).

The court below held that the apartment of this case in the name of the plaintiff who is the husband during the marriage of the plaintiff, although the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the plaintiff who is the plaintiff who is the plaintiff, the plaintiff, in the actual process of acquisition, that the defendant, who is the head of the household, entered into the sales contract for the apartment of this case in the name of the plaintiff, and acquired it by bearing the full amount of the sale price, and that the apartment of this case in this case belongs to the defendant's sole ownership. In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are all justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)