2017Dives 200340 Claim for division of property due to de facto marriage disputes

A (1955, South Korea)

Address

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Subagent of lawsuit

B. (000 prior to the opening of name, 1961, n, n)

Busan Address

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

January 4, 2018

1. The other party shall pay to the claimant the amount of 84,400,000 won and the interest rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

2. The cost of a trial shall be borne by each person.

The other party shall pay to the claimant 100,000,000 won as the division of property, and 5% interest per annum from the day of the final judgment of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the overall purport of records and examinations, the following facts are recognized:

A. On June 1984, the claimant completed a marriage report with A other than the trial, and had two children of full age under the chain that they were married with A.

B. On March 1, 200, the claimant acquired an apartment house located in Changwon-si under the name of the network A (hereinafter “the apartment house of this case”) in the period of marriage with the deceased A, and the claimant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the apartment of this case under the name of his/her father on March 19, 2010 due to the reason that the claimant was the bad credit holder, etc. after the death of the network A.

C. On April 2012, the claimant was unmarried by introducing a branch of a person (the former name was 000, and the former name was changed on June 26, 2015) and was living together with him/her after he/she returned to the former. Although he/she was married on or around March 6, 201, the claimant did not file a marriage report.

D. On August 2012, the claimant and the other party purchased apartment units in the name of the other party, which were newly constructed at the time of marriage, under the name of the other party, and the claimant paid KRW 38 million with the sales contract amount. Since then, between December 20, 2012 and June 20, 2014, the other party paid the sales price by receiving an intermediate payment loan of KRW 170 million with the collective loan of housing capital, from December 20, 2012 to June 20, 2014.

E. From June 2013 to May 2014, the claimant paid to the other party totaling KRW 46,079, and KRW 0100,00,00 of the claimant’s salary to the other party around marriage. The other party paid the above salary to his/her occupational father, etc., and the other party paid the Plaintiff’s money or some of the registration fees.

F. On January 25, 2014, the petitioner sold the instant apartment complex under his/her name to a third party by fixing the purchase price of KRW 24,800,000,000,000 to a third party. On the same day, the petitioner paid KRW 15,000,000,000 out of the purchase price of KRW 15,000,000,000, which was paid as part payments on the same day, and KRW 15,000,000,000, which was paid as part payments on January 27, 2014, transferred to the other party the account transfer the balance of KRW 22,00,000,000,000 paid on February 18, 2014, the remainder of KRW 127,60,760,548,000, which was paid on the said apartment complex.

G. The other party deposited KRW 120,000,000 out of the purchase price of the instant apartment from the claimant under his/her name as a welfare-based ordinary deposit ( KRW 30 million + KRW 90,000), but terminated around March 26, 2014.

H. On March 10, 2014, the claimant and the other spouse suffered conflict and conflict with each other, such as beauty art service activities, etc. on or around March 10, 2014. From the end of March 2014, the claimant began to move separately. On February 25, 2015, the claimant receives transfer of KRW 20 million from the other party to the account in the name of the claimant.

was made.

I. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on October 2014, the claimant and the other party sold the above apartment house sold to the other party under the name of the other party, and on the other party’s name, the sales price of KRW 38,000,000 paid after taking over the part payment loan obligation that was borrowed under the other party’s name with respect to the above apartment house.

(j) The claimant and the other party shall be the father of the other party, even after their stay, who will lead to the life of the other party.

After August 2015, exchange has been suspended.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion

As a division of property following the resolution of de facto marital relationship, the claimant is entitled to the payment of KRW 127, 760, 548 ( = 200 million = 100, 239, 452 - 200 million from the other party’s account to the claimant’s account on February 25, 2015 and damages for delay calculated at a non-interest rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day when the other party complete payment.

The other party asserts that, among the purchase price of the apartment in this case, the money paid by the claimant to the other party among the purchase price of the apartment in this case is the performance of the promise that the claimant wants to purchase the apartment to reside in the other party while having commenced a de facto marital relationship with the other party, or has donated the other party under the pretext of resolving the other party's residence while resolving a de facto marital relationship with the other party, and thus, it cannot be viewed as property subject to property division. Thus, the other party's property division cannot be viewed as property subject to property division. Even if it becomes property subject to property division, the claimant also sells the apartment under the name of the other party and return it to the other party, and the above money should also be considered in division of property.

B. Determination

1) First of all, the claimant started a de facto marital relationship with the other party and donated an apartment to the other party. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the other party’s allegation on the ground of the statement in the evidence No. 12 as to the fact that the claimant, at the time of resolution of a de facto marital relationship with the other party, donated the apartment sales proceeds of this case to the other party in order to resolve the other party’s residence, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

2) Property to be divided:

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that a de facto marital relationship between the claimant and the other party has been no longer reached until August 2015. And according to the above recognition room, at the time of resolving the de facto marital relationship, the co-property of the married couple and the other party formed jointly with the claimant or the other party, or derived or modified from the special property of the claimant or the special property of the claimant, which can be deemed to have contributed to the maintenance of the other party's property or to the prevention of the decrease in its value.

A) Active property in the name of the claimant

○ Sale of apartment in the name of the other party to bring about KRW 38 million.

○ The claimant has received 20 million won from the other party on February 25, 2015

(2) Each of the above money shall be deemed to be held by the claimant at the time of the de facto marital failure

B) Petty property in the name of the claimant: None.

C) Active property under the other party’s name

○ Amount of KRW 100,000,000 for termination of a deposit for a welfare-based fixed deposit

D) The other party’s passive property under the other party’s name: None.

(e) Net property under the name of applicant: 50,000 won: ( = 30,000 won + 20,000 won)

(f) Net property under the name of the other party: KRW 122,000,000;

G) Total amount of net property under the name of the claimant and the other party: KRW 170 million ( = = 50 million + KRW 120 million + KRW 100 million)

3) Ratio and method of division

As revealed by the above facts of recognition, the division of property shall be determined at 810% of the claimant and the other party's contribution to the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division, each age, occupation, course and process of de facto marriage, contents of de facto marriage life and the period of de facto marriage, particularly in consideration of the fact that most of the above property are derived or modified from the plaintiff's unique property, and the support factors after the de facto marriage is resolved. In addition, the division of property shall be determined at 810% of the claimant and 20% of the other party.

Therefore, the portion of the claimant to be attributed to the above division ratio is KRW 140,240,00 ( = 1700,800 won x 80%) 3,560,000 won for the other party ( = 177,800 won) (x 20% for the claimant's net property). Since the claimant's net property is KRW 58,000,000,000 for the claimant's property division, the other party would have to pay KRW 84,440,000 to the claimant ( = 14,240,000 won - 5,8 million).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the other party is obligated to pay to the claimant 8,440,00 won as division of property and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day after the day when the judgment is confirmed to the day after the full payment is made. Thus, the claimant's claim for division of property of this case shall be determined as above, and the judgment shall be made as per the disposition

Judges Park Jong-sung