In a case where a legal marriage and a de facto marriage continue to exist three times during the 13-year period between husband and wife, and the period of separate marriage due to the divorce is six months and two months, whether all property created by mutual cooperation during each marriage shall be subject to division of property following the last resolution of de facto marriage (affirmative with qualification)

In a case where a legal marriage and a de facto marriage continue to exist three times during the 13-year period between husband and wife, and the separate period following the divorce is six months and two months, it is reasonable to view that any property created by mutual cooperation during each marriage may be the subject of liquidation, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the property was settled or renounced by the divorce.

Article 839-2 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1752 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1752)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 99Reu861 delivered on September 1, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the plaintiff and the defendant entered a marriage ceremony on April 15, 1984, and reported a marriage on December 28, 1985, and reported a divorce on April 7, 1987, and they lived together with a ruling on June 1987, and reported a marriage again on May 10, 1991, but the second divorce was made on July 19, 193, and on September 3, 1993, the first marriage was made. The plaintiff and the defendant living together without a report of marriage, and eventually, the de facto marital relationship was terminated by the plaintiff's withdrawal on June 27, 1997.

As such, in a case where a legal marriage and a de facto marriage continue to exist three times during the 13-year period between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the separate period following each agreement remains more than 6 months and 2 months, it is reasonable to view that the property created by mutual cooperation during each marriage can be the subject of liquidation, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the property was settled or renounced by mutual cooperation during the 13-year period, in a case where the property division following the last marriage remains more than 6-month and 2-month period following each agreement.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in taking the active and negative property that was created over the period prior to the marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant as the object of the division of property following the resolution of de facto marriage in this case.

However, the court below erred by understanding the plaintiff's cause of claim in this case and by misapprehending the legal principles that the progress of the period of limitation cannot be interrupted in the period of limitation, while the court below made a decision on the same purport, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. However, such errors by misapprehending the legal principles that the period of limitation cannot be interrupted in the period of limitation.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)