Whether or not the obligation of one side of the married couple against the third party is the object of liquidation in the division of property.

In a case where one side of the married couple requesting a judicial divorce requests a division of the property created by one side of the parties in cooperation with the other side, the obligation assumed by one side of the married couple to a third party during the marriage, in principle, shall not be subject to liquidation as an individual’s obligation, in addition to the ordinary family affairs, but only be subject to liquidation if it is an obligation accompanied by the formation of common property.

Article 843 (Civil Act)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-dae et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

The principal of the case and one other

Busan High Court Decision 93Reu195 delivered on June 16, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and second points:

In a case where one side of the married couple requesting a judicial divorce requests a division of the property created by one side of the parties in cooperation with the other party, the obligation assumed by one side of the married couple to a third party during the marriage, in principle, shall not be subject to liquidation as an individual’s obligation, in addition to ordinary family affairs, but only be subject to liquidation if it is an obligation accompanied by the formation of common property (see Supreme Court Decision 92Meu501 delivered on May 25, 1993).

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's debt amount of KRW 200 million ( KRW 100 million in the name of the court below and KRW 100 million in the name of the defendant) borrowed from the non-party Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company on May 6, 191 should be deducted from the amount of the property subject to division. Even according to the defendant's assertion, the above loan amount of KRW 200 million is not affected by the legal principles as stated in the judgment below. The above loan amount of KRW 200 million in the name of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment below, since it was consumed for the repayment of the debt to extinguish the above mutual savings and finance company's debt (the defendant's special property right was established with regard to the non-party 1's debt, etc.) or used as the operating expenses of the defendant's management fraternity, and it is merely a debt to be borne by the defendant due to the formation of ordinary household debt or common property, and there is no error in the above legal principles as to recognize the loan amount of property division.

2. On the third ground for appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party father's above obligation should be deducted from the amount of property subject to division of property on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion as to the debtor of the loan or the place of use from the mutual savings and finance company, and the above loan was borrowed from the non-party Gangseo-dong (the "Geodongdong" in the original judgment is a clerical error) and the defendant merely established the right to collateral as to the real property subject to division of property on the ground that it is a real guarantee and its unique property. According to the records and evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)