2006B2 Division of Property

RoO

Seoul Address Seongbuk-gu

Permanent Address Jung-gu Seoul

Dok Law Firm, Attorneys Kim ○-○

Kim

Seoul Mapo-gu

Permanent Address Mapo-gu

Law Firm, Attorney Park Jong-ok

Seoul Family Court Decision 2003 Dog-Ma4822 dated December 7, 2005

June 30, 2006

1. Of the original adjudication, the part against the other party in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and the claimant's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

The other party pays 16,891,406 won to the claimant for the division of property.

2. The incidental appeal of the claimant and the remaining appeal of the other party are dismissed, respectively;

3. 3/4 out of the total costs of decision shall be borne by the claimant and the remainder by the other party, respectively.

4. The payment portion of paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal, incidental purport of appeal

1. Purport of the claim and its incidental appeal;

The portion of the original adjudication against the claimant shall be revoked. The other party shall pay 264,042,460 won to the claimant, the principal, and 1/2 shares of each of the real property listed in the separate sheet No. 1, for the transfer of ownership due to the division of property on the basis of the fixed date.

2. Purport of appeal;

The part of the original adjudication against the other party shall be revoked, and the claim of the claimant corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Factual basis

According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

가. 당사자의 신분상 지위 ( 1 ) 청구인과 상대방은 1995. 8. 14. 혼인신고를 마치고, 그 사이에서 아들 노○○과 딸 노ㅇㅇ을 두었으나, 부부불화를 극복하지 못하고 2003. 4. 2. 협의이혼신고를 마쳤 ( 2 ) 청구인과 상대방은 위 협의이혼 당시 청구인을 위 자녀의 친권자로 정하였고 , 그 후 지금까지 청구인이 위 자녀를 홀로 양육하고 있다 .

B. During the marriage, the claimant and the other party made a contribution of KRW 20,00,00 each to 20,000,000 to a third party while married, and began to enter into a marital life at the same time by leasing a house located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City. (2) The claimant from November 1, 1988 to work at △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, a company was dismissed on March 1998, which was after marriage. At the time of marriage, there was income of KRW 2,00,000 per month, and from around September 1998, from around 0, 000, ○○○ was operated as the insurance agency, which was operated in the name of the claimant, but from around 0,000, 00 won, 00 won was also closed from around 10, 1999 to around 0,000 won.

( 3 ) 상대방은 1992. 2. 경부터 운수업체인 ◈◈◈◈◈◈ 주식회사 ' 에 입사하여 현재 상무이사로 재직하고 있고, 이와 병행하여 1995. 11. 경부터는 상대방 명의로 ' OO ' 이라는 상호로 보험대리점을 운영하고 있는바, 상대방의 소득은 1996년부터 1998년까지는 약 월 2, 500, 000원 내지 3, 000, 000원 정도였고, 1999년경부터 이혼 당시까지는 월 6, 000, 000원 내지 7, 000, 000원에 달하였다 .

다. 부부공동재산의 형성과정 및 보유 현황 ( 1 ) 적극재산 ( 가 ) 청구인과 상대방은 함께 얻은 수입으로 ① 1998. 5. 20. 경 서울 □□구 △△동 38 - 121 대 43㎡ 및 그 지상 200아파트 33평형 분양권 ( 00동 ○○○호 ) 을 186, 097, 095원에 청구인 명의로 매수하였는데, 위 토지 부분에 관하여 2001. 10. 19. 상대방 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마치고 ( 위 아파트에 관하여 2004. 11. 10. 상대방 명의로 소유권보존등기를 마쳤다 ), ② 1998. 12. 4. 경 서울 ○○구 ◈◈동 1140 OOOOO아파트 000동 ㅇㅇㅇ호 24평 ) 를 109, 532, 000원에 매수하여 2000. 10. 20. 상대방 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마치고, ③ 2002. 5. 27. 경 제주 ◎◎◎군 □□읍 △△리 산 137 - 7 임야 9, 250㎡ 중 2, 069 / 9, 250 지분을 84, 500, 000원에 매수하여 2002. 8. 19. 역시 상대방 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마치고, ④ 2002. 4. 22. 경 상대방 명의로 서울 ○○너0000호 삼성 SM520 승용차를 19, 055, 000원에 구입하고, ⑤ 2002. 8. 8. 경 상대방 명의로 서울 □□□□□□호 현대 투스카니 승용차를 16, 900, 000원에 구입하였다 . ( 나 ) 청구인과 상대방은 1994. 12. 28. 부터 2002. 6. 20. 까지 사이에 상대방 명의로 △△△△△△ 주식회사와 7건의 보험계약을 체결한 후 위 협의이혼 무렵까지 보험료로 합계 12, 687, 000원을 납입하였고, 1998. 4. 30., 2000. 12. 20., 2001. 4. 27. 3번에 걸쳐 상대방 명의로 ◎◎◎◎◎◎◎◎ 주식회사와 3건의 보험계약을 체결한 후 위 협의이혼 무렵까지 보험료로 합계 6, 570, 000원을 납입하였다 . ( 다 ) 상대방은 2003. 3. 5. 위 아파트 000동 ㅇㅇㅇ호를 자신의 명의로 임대보증금 210, 000, 000원에 임대하여, 위 협의이혼 무렵 위 임대보증금으로 수령한 금원을 포함하여 얼마간의 현금을 보유하고 있었는데, 그 중 5, 000, 000원은 상대방의 후배인 김○○에게 대여하고, 그 중 51, 000, 000원은 청구인에게 교부하였으며, 그 중 60, 000, 000원은 이혼 후 상대방의 주거지인 서울 □□□구 △△동 2가 ■■■■■■■ 아파트 OOO동 OOO호 임차보증금으로 사용하였고, 나머지 금원은 혼인 중 부담한 채무를 변제하는데 사용하였다 .

( 라 ) 또한, 위 협의이혼 무렵 상대방은 시가 600, 000원 상당의 세탁기, 냉장고 등 가재도구와 시가 940, 000원 상당의 컴퓨터를 점유하고 있었고, 그 외 적극재산의 협의이혼 무렵 가액은 별지 제2목록 ‘ 재산 가액 ’ 란 기재와 같다 . ( 2 ) 소극재산 ( 가 ) 청구인과 상대방은 위 각 부동산 취득세 및 아파트 집기 구입비, 승용차 구입자금 등에 충당하기 위하여 상대방 명의로 ① 2002. 4. 20. ◈◈◈◈◈◈ 주식회사로부터 18, 960, 000원을 무이자로 차용하고, ② 2002. 6. 8. △△은행으로부터 40, 000, 000원을 , ③ 2002. 5. 16. □□은행으로부터 10, 000, 000원을, ④ 2002. 5. 21. 은행으로부터 15, 000, 000원을, ⑤ 같은 날 ◎◎은행으로부터 10, 000, 000원을 각 대출받았는데, 그 이후 일부 변제하여 협의이혼 무렵 ◈◈◈◈◈◈ 주식회사에 대한 채무는 15, 484, 000원, 미□은행에 대한 채무는 1, 946, 100원, 은행에 대한 채무는 13, 041, 745원, ◎◎은행에 대한 채무는 8, 284, 103원이 남게 되었다 .

( 나 ) 청구인과 상대방은 상대방 명의로 2002. 10. 4. 위 ▣▣▣▣▣아파트 ○○○동 ○○○호를 임대보증금 93, 000, 000원에 임대하여 그 무렵 위 임대보증금 전액을 수령하였고, 앞서 본 바와 같이 2003. 3. 5. 위 아파트 OOO동 ○○○호를 임대보증금 210, 000, 000원에 임대하여, 상대방이 2003. 3. 5. 위 임대보증금 중 20, 000, 000원을, 같은 달 20. 그 중 100, 000, 000원을, 2003. 4. 11. 나머지 90, 000, 000원을 수령한 후 앞서 본 바와 같이 채무변제금 등으로 이를 모두 사용하였다 . ( 다 ) 청구인과 상대방은 위 제주 ◎◎◎군 소재 임야를 구입하면서 상대방 명의로 2002. 4. 4. 과 2002. 5. 8. 상대방의 아버지인 김◎◎로부터 68, 000, 000원을, 2002. 5. 8 . 상대방의 언니인 김□□으로부터 16, 000, 000원을 각 차용하였는데, 그 후 일부 변제하여 협의이혼 무렵 김○○에 대한 채무는 12, 000, 000원, 김□□에 대한 채무는 5, 000, 000원이 남게 되었다 .

( 라 ) 청구인과 상대방은 위 200아파트 000동 ○○○호 입주비용으로 2002. 4. 9. 과 같은 달 25. 상대방의 동생 김▽▽로부터 15, 000, 000원을 상대방 명의로 차용하였는데, 그 후 일부 변제하여 협의이혼 무렵 8, 886, 000원이 남게 되었다 . ( 마 ) 청구인과 상대방은 앞서 본 보험대리점 및 신발가게 등의 운영자금으로 소요된 비용, 즉 □□□□□상가 ( 서울 구 △△동 755 1층 143호 ) 구입대금 ( 191, 755, 553원 ), 등기비용 ( 15, 000, 000원 ), 초기 물량대금 ( 약 20, 000, 000원 ), 인테리어비용 등 ( 약 7, 465 , 000원 ), 약 1년간 운영자금 ( 약 43, 000, 000원 ) 등을 조달하기 위하여 ▽▽은행, □□은행 등 금융기관과 친지, 가족 등으로부터 상대방 명의로 금원을 차용하였는데, 그 이후 위 상가를 196, 000, 000원에 처분하여 그 대금으로 일부 채무를 변제하여, 협의이혼 무렵에는 상대방의 친구 하○○에 대한 채무 30, 000, 000원, 상대방의 언니 김△△에 대한 채무 15, 000, 000원, 상대방의 언니 김□□에 대한 채무 30, 000, 000원이 남게 되었다 . ( 바 ) 청구인과 상대방은 ◎◎◎◎◎◎◎◎ 주식회사 주식회사에 가입한 위 각 보험을 담보로 1998. 4. 30. 과 2001. 4. 27. 2번에 걸쳐 합계 5, 110, 000원을 상대방 명의로 대출받았고, △△△△△△ 주식회사에 가입한 위 각 보험을 담보로 1994. 12. 28. 부터 2002. 6. 20. 까지 사이에 6번에 걸쳐 합계 6, 950, 000원을 상대방 명의로 대출받았다 .

D. The other party to the settlement of a part of the couple’s common property was to pay 51,00,000 won to the claimant at the time of the divorce and to settle the common property amounting to KRW 76,019,720 in total, including the transfer of the said modern Scar car equivalent to KRW 10,50,000 at the market price, at the time of the divorce.

2. Determination

(a) Details of the property subject to division of property (1) and confirmation of the value thereof;

According to the above facts, each active property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 falls under the common property of the couple formed or maintained by joint efforts during marriage. Each passive property listed in the separate sheet No. 3 falls under the obligation accompanied by the formation of a couple’s common life or a common property, and thus, all of the property in this case is subject to the division of the property in this case. The net value of the property subject to division after deducting the negative property from the positive property is 640,524,200 won, which is the aggregate value of each active property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 3 minus 454,70,701,948 won, which is the aggregate value of each active property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 3. 185,822,252

First of all, the claimant asserts that if the co-owned property is divided by the so-called division method that the co-owned property belongs to one spouse as the property division in this case and the other spouse pays the amount of the co-owned property to the other spouse, it is fair to evaluate the value of the property to be divided at the time of actual division, not at the time of divorce. However, in the division of property premised on divorce, the property subject to division should be determined at the date of divorce (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Meu230, Mar. 14, 2003; 202S36, Aug. 28, 2002, etc.). Even if there was a phenomenon that the value of the property of the co-owned property of the couple after the divorce is increased or decreased, the settlement of the original co-owned property and the ownership of the property after the divorce shall be made at the time of agreement, and since the difference in the value of the property of the husband and wife after the divorce shall not be attributed to the above co-owned owner at the end of the grounds.

In addition, the claimant asserts that the other party shall receive and hold 90,000,000 won out of the above 00 apartment OOOOOO rental deposit 210,000,000 won on April 11, 2003, which is after the divorce, and also include active property. As recognized earlier, the fact that the other party received part of the above 00 apartment OOOO rental deposit after the divorce as alleged above is recognized, however, the date of the above receipt is ten days after the date of the divorce report, and the above money is deemed to have been used for the repayment of the obligation borne under the name of the other party during the marriage, as well as the rental deposit received before the divorce. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(3) The other party's assertion and determination

On the other hand, the other party may set up the expenses necessary for the creation of active property on June 8, 2002.

The above loan debt 40,00,000, which was borrowed from △△△ Bank, shall be included in the property division of this case as small property. However, according to the fact-finding by the court of the original instance, the fact-finding on April 15, 2003, immediately after the other party was divorced can be acknowledged that the other party had repaid the full amount of the above loan on the grounds that the other party had held the joint property equivalent to the above loan repayment at the time of the divorce. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the other party had held the above loan repayment at the time of the divorce. Thus, the above claim cannot be included in the property division by treating the above debt as a small property remaining after the divorce.

B. The method and proportion of division of property, and the division of the property in this case, based on the circumstances indicated in the instant trial, including the form of the property subject to division, the status of its use, the current ownership, and the process of acquisition, etc., shall be comprehensively and finally reverted to the other party according to the pertinent holding status, and as a result, it is reasonable that the property subject to division will ultimately revert to the other party, by means of the other

Furthermore, with regard to the ratio of division of property of the claimant and the other party, comprehensively taking account of various circumstances indicated in the examination of the case, such as the following: (a) the developments leading up to the acquisition of the property subject to division; (b) the degree of cooperation between the claimant and the other party on the formation and maintenance of the property subject to division and the degree of revenue, status of utilization; (c) the age, family relationship, process of marital life, duration of continuance, distress situation, ability of the claimant to live in the future; and (c) the amount of division of property between the claimant and the other party, shall be determined at the rate of 50%, respectively; and (d) the amount to be reverted to the claimant accordingly is KRW 92, 911,126, which corresponds to the ratio of division of property of the above 50% among the net property subject to division of the above 18

(c) Deduction from the property value settled on the claimant;

On the other hand, as recognized earlier, the claimant received cash of KRW 51,00,00 from the other party at the time of the divorce and received a total of KRW 76,01,00,00 in the market price of KRW 10,50,000 and KRW 76,019,720, such as the delivery of the said modern Scar car at the market price of KRW 10,50,00. As such, the other party is obligated to pay the claimant the remainder of KRW 16,891,720 after deducting the above KRW 76,00 from KRW 92,91,126 as a division of property.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for division of property of the claimant shall be determined as above. Since the part against the other party who has different conclusions among the original adjudication is unfair, it shall be revoked, and the claim of the claimant corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed, and the incidental appeal of the claimant and the remaining appeal of the other party shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Hong-woo

Judge Lee Young-young

Judges Cho Jin-jin

A person shall be appointed.