[1] Whether an appeal may be filed against the lower court’s decision that was rendered favorable to himself/herself (negative)

[2] The property subject to division in the division of property at the time of judicial divorce and the standard time for determining the amount thereof (=date of closing argument in fact-finding trial)

[3] The method of division of property and its ratio or amount

[1] Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 839-2 (2) and 843 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 839-2 (2) and 843 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Order 200Do13 Decided May 2, 2000 (Gong200Ha, 1427) Supreme Court Decision 99Meu906 Decided September 22, 2000 (Gong200Ha, 2225)

Plaintiff (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Principal of the case

Incheon District Court Decision 2007Reu277, 284 Decided March 26, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The final appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself. Therefore, the allegation that the lower court’s decision favorable to himself/herself is erroneous cannot be a legitimate ground for final appeal.

The court below determined the amount of property division by determining that the land in this case is registered under the name of the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter "the defendant") and it is subject to property division. Such determination by the court below is a favorable measure against the plaintiff, claiming that the land in this case is a special property owned by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter "the plaintiff"). Thus, the plaintiff cannot contest the illegality of the measure. The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is without merit.

The court below determined that the profits of the instant telecom from April 2002 to November 2006 reached KRW 25,00,000 per month, and that most of the profits earned by the Defendant was consumed by the above telecom’s loan, interest on each real estate under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and other expenses necessary for the marital life of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and excluded the profits of the above telecom from the subject of division of property. In light of the records, the court below’s decision is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or the violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

B. Property subject to division of property at the time of judicial divorce and its amount shall be determined on the basis of the date on which the fact-finding hearing of a divorce lawsuit is closed. As such, the court shall determine the value of each individual co-property based on objective data recorded in the records (see Supreme Court Decision 9Meu906 delivered on September 22, 2000).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in taking a measure that calculated the value of the property subject to division of property of this case on the basis of June 1, 2008 near the closing date of argument at the court below according to the result of re-appraisal in the court below's judgment, and there is no violation of law such as deviation from

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The method, ratio or amount of division of property shall be determined by the court in consideration of the amount of property achieved through the cooperation of both parties, and other circumstances.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, we affirm the measures that the court below recognized the division ratio of the plaintiff and the defendant as 38%:62% by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances as shown in its reasoning, and there is no violation of law such as deviation from the limit of free evaluation of evidence as alleged in the

4. Conclusion

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.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)