[1] The case where the property of one side of the married couple is subject to division of property

[2] Where a debt owed by a spouse to a third party during marriage becomes subject to liquidation

[3] Matters and statements to be considered by the court in ordering the division of property

[1] The property division system under Article 839-2 of the Civil Act mainly aims at liquidation and distribution of the actual common property acquired during the marriage. As long as there exists the property acquired by mutual cooperation when the married couple divorce at trial, the court shall determine the amount and method of division by taking into account all the circumstances of both parties, such as the degree of contribution to the formation of the property at the request of both parties. In this case, although the property of the married couple is not the object of division in principle, even if the property is unique property, it may be the object of division if one party actively cooperates in the maintenance of the specific property, and if it is recognized that the other party actively prevented the reduction of the property or has cooperated in the proliferation thereof

[2] In principle, an obligation borne by one spouse during marriage to a third party is not subject to liquidation as an individual's obligation except for ordinary family affairs, but is subject to liquidation if it is an obligation accompanied by the formation of a common property.

[3] The method, rate or amount of division of property shall be determined by the court in consideration of the amount of the property achieved by cooperation between the parties concerned, and other circumstances. It does not need to state all such circumstances individually and specifically on a daily basis.

[1] Articles 839-2 and 843 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 839-2 and 843 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 839-2 and 843 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Meu734 decided Oct. 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1698), Supreme Court Decision 94Meu598 decided Dec. 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 492), Supreme Court Decision 95Meu175, 182 decided Oct. 12, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3780), Supreme Court Decision 94Meu635, 642 decided Feb. 9, 196 (Gong196, 195Ha, 3780), Supreme Court Decision 95Meu175, 182 decided Oct. 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3780), Supreme Court Decision 94Meu635, Dec. 196 (Gong196, 1952) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 194Meu19453, Nov. 29, 1994

Plaintiff

Defendant

The principal of the case and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 97Reu47, 454 delivered on September 12, 1997

The appeal and the appeal are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (Counterclaim) and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal and incidental appeal are also examined.

The property division system provided for in Article 839-2 of the Civil Act mainly aims to liquidate and divide the actual common property acquired during marriage. Thus, as long as the couple’s property has been built through mutual cooperation at the time of judicial divorce, the court shall determine the amount and method of division by taking into account all the circumstances of both parties, such as the degree of contribution to the formation of the property at the request of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Meu175, Oct. 12, 1995; 95Meu182, Oct. 12, 1995). In such cases, although the property of one couple is not the object of division in principle, even if the property is unique, it may be divided if it is deemed that the other party actively prevented the decrease in the property or has cooperated in the increase of the property. Meanwhile, the obligation borne by one spouse to a third party during marriage is not the object of division, but the court shall determine the amount of the property division by taking into account all other circumstances such as the amount of the property shared or its common property.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that, in purchasing a detached house as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter the defendant) purchased the apartment house with the defendant's mother's loan and the disposal price for selling the apartment house and the bank loan, five years have passed since they married with the co-defendants of the court of first instance as of the court of first instance by using the proceeds of selling the apartment house and the bank loan as its main resources, the two apartment houses registered under the above co-defendants of the court of first instance were the subject of division of property. According to the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just, and if the facts are found to have contributed directly and indirectly to the maintenance and increase of property through domestic labor, etc., as long as it appears that the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff) contributed to the maintenance and increase of property through mutual cooperation of both parties, the above two apartment houses are subject to division of property, and there is no violation of law such as theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the court below's decision is consistent with the theory of lawsuit that the land on the second parcel of land located in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongdong, which was included in the object of division, is the special property that the defendant succeeded to from Cho Jong-gun, but according to the records, the plaintiff was mainly engaged in domestic labor, but the defendant was used as a brain dystrophy on December 16, 1989, and he was employed by the defendant around May 190 after he retired from the workplace, he was engaged in gold with the defendant and operated a gold bank with his own experience in the KIC, and since around July 1994, he can be recognized that the income was used as the cost of living, and there was no specific contribution to the prevention of reduction of the above special property. The court below's decision that considered the above special property as the object of property division as the object of the above special property is just and it is not justified in the judgment of the court below, which found the defendant's total amount of property division from the defendant's loan 20.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)