Whether the presumption of the special property of a married couple is reversed solely on the grounds that the presumption of possession of property by either spouse is reversed, and on the grounds that the other party cooperateed in the acquisition of property or that there was a contribution to the marital life (negative)

The presumption of a special property shall be presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner: Provided, That when one or both parties have proved that one or both parties have acquired the property by bearing the consideration for the said property, the presumption of a special property shall be deemed to be the ownership of the other party or the sharing of both parties, by the reversal of the presumption. However, the presumption cannot be deemed to be a ground for the reversal of the presumption merely with the fact that there was cooperation of the other party in acquiring the property or there was any mutual assistance in marriage

Article 830 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 455, Dec. 3, 1990) (Law No. 1986, Oct. 23, 1990) (Law No. 1990, No. 2381, Aug. 14, 1992)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 91Na913 delivered on May 1, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The presumption of special property shall be presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner of the property acquired by one side in the marriage: Provided, That when it is proved that the other side or both parties to acquire the property with the burden of the consideration for the property, the presumption of special property shall be reversed, and it shall be deemed to be the ownership of the other party or the joint ownership of both parties. However, the mere fact that there was cooperation of the other party in acquiring the property or there was an assistance with the other party in married life cannot be deemed to be a ground for the reversal of the above presumption (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu137,1338, Sept. 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu5624, Oct. 23, 199; 92Da16171, Aug. 14, 1992). The court below held that the Plaintiff and the other party to the registration of ownership was the joint ownership of the Plaintiff and the other party to the building, and thus, the registration of ownership was null and void.

According to the records, as to 186 2 to 56 Magpo-gu, Masan-si, the site of the building of this case, the plaintiff was successful on September 2, 1968, and the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the plaintiff's name as to the unregistered building under the plaintiff's name as to the building of this case was removed, and the building of this case was constructed in the plaintiff's name on the above site, and the plaintiff was registered as the owner on the house register. The plaintiff made a registration of preservation of ownership in his name as to the building of this case on January 8, 192, 192, which was after the plaintiff used the above house register and divorced with the non-party 1, and the court below did not deny this. Accordingly, the building of this case is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff during the marriage period of the plaintiff and the non-party 1.

In full view of the evidence, the court below acknowledged that: (a) the plaintiff married with the non-party 1 without any specific property; (b) the non-party 1 continued to drive a bus in Seoul after obtaining a driver's license in Musan in 1962; (c) the plaintiff was engaged in driving service for about one year after purchasing one taxi at around 1969; and (d) the plaintiff operated food store jointly with the plaintiff from around 1970 to 1973; and (c) the plaintiff lent part of the household funds created by the non-party 1 in common efforts to the non-party lele with a maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000 won on the site of the building of this case; (d) the non-party 1 did not request the sale of the above debts; and (e) the plaintiff and the non-party 1 jointly constructed the building of this case on September 2, 1968; and (e) the court below acknowledged that there was no reason to believe that the plaintiff's statement and dependence on the defendant's personal evidence and the defendant's living evidence.

The court below's decision, which rejected the plaintiff's assertion and presumed that the building of this case belongs to the co-ownership of the plaintiff and the non-party 1, cannot be justified in finding facts against the rules of evidence. The arguments are justified.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.