In case where one side of a married couple deems that the property acquired under his own name is co-ownership of the married couple.

The presumption may be reversed only in cases where the real estate acquired by one of the married couple in his/her name is presumed to be his/her own property, and there was a cooperation of the other party in acquiring such real estate or there was a mutual assistance in the marriage life, and there is no reason to reverse the above presumption, and where it is proved that the married couple either purchased such real estate by sharing a part of the purchase price, or that the married couple purchased it by bearing a joint obligation, etc., the said presumption may be recognized as co-ownership of the married couple.

Article 830 of the Civil Act

Appellee Attorney Presiding over the plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na427,428 decided May 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer of the defendant's title, which was completed with respect to the real estate in this case based on the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the judgment of the court below, is justified in the judgment of the court below, recognizing that the defendant taken the plaintiff's seal imprint, obtained the plaintiff's seal imprint certificate, and used it with the plaintiff's seal imprint certificate, and that the provisional registration of the defendant's title is an invalid registration without any cause and accepted the plaintiff's

The presumption cannot be reversed solely on the ground that the real estate acquired by one of the married couple in his/her name is presumed to be his/her own property, and there was cooperation between the other party in acquiring such real estate or there was an assistance in the marriage life, and it does not constitute a reason to reverse the above presumption. The presumption can be reversed and the real estate can be recognized as co-ownership of the married couple, only in the case where a substantive reason such as either the married couple purchased the real estate by sharing a part of the price, or the married couple purchased it by bearing a joint obligation.

According to the records, the judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, was justified in its judgment that the defendant purchased 48/70 of the purchase fund of the real estate of this case, which was acquired under the name of the plaintiff who is the husband, on the ground that the non-party witness of the court of first instance, who is the same living together with the defendant's statement, cannot believe that he/she purchased 48/70 of the purchase fund of this case under the name of the plaintiff who is the husband, and rejected it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and that the real estate of this case was acquired during the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant, the presumption that the real estate of this case is the plaintiff's unique property, the title owner of which was the plaintiff, was reversed, and all of the counter-claim claims were dismissed. Such judgment seems to be justified,

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)