[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other than Defendant 1

Other party (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

2. Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

The other party pays 68 million won to the claimant for the division of property.

1. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of the case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The claimant and the other party reported their marriage on June 7, 2001.

B. On September 6, 2013, the claimant and the other party agreed to divorce on September 6, 2013. On the same day, the claimant prepared and implemented a document with the following content (hereinafter “instant agreement”) under the title of “Agreement” to the other party:

The Re-Appellant and the other party agreed to divorce on September 6, 2013. The Re-Appellant shall waive the consolation money. The Re-Appellant shall not claim the division of property.

C. On October 14, 2013, the claimant and the other party shared consultations.

2. Whether the request for a trial of this case is lawful

A. Determination as to whether there exists an agreement on division of property

1) According to Articles 839-2 and 843 of the Civil Act, in cases where a married couple gets divorced or divorced by agreement, one side of the married couple may claim a division of property against the other party. In such cases, if the parties fail to reach agreement on the division of property or are unable to reach agreement on the division of property, the family court shall determine the amount and method of division upon the parties’ claim. If the agreement on the division of property has already been reached between the two parties, claiming a division of property is not unlawful. In addition, giving up the right to claim a division of property that has not arisen before the marriage is terminated by nature, it is not allowed by the nature of giving up the right to claim a division of property that has not arisen before the marriage is terminated, but as an exception, the agreement to waive the right to claim a division of property is valid.

2) In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the other party agreed on the division of property by agreement in this case on the premise of divorce, and thereafter, the agreement on the division of property had already been concluded between the claimant and the other party, so the agreement on the division of property had already been reached between the claimant and the other party. Therefore, the claim for division of property in this case by the claimant who claimed the division of property, despite the agreement in this case, is unlawful, barring special circumstances

B. Judgment on the claimant's assertion

1) The claimant's assertion

A) The instant agreement is not only a document prepared without the agreement between the claimant and the other party to waive the division of property, but also constitutes a non-career indication. Also, the intent to waive the division of property, based on the instant agreement, may be invalidated or revoked, since it is a document prepared by coercion by using the state of coercion that makes it difficult to refuse normal judgment or the other party’s demand, or a document prepared by deceiving the claimant as if the other party could not proceed to divorce unless the instant agreement is prepared, in a situation where violent language, assault, or assault against the other party’s claimant or the other party’s child who had been continued within the marriage period, was significantly unsatisfyed, and thus, the claimant who requested divorce may actually be harmed by threatening the other party’s family.

B) Unless otherwise, the waiver of division of property according to the instant agreement constitutes a juristic act with respect to matters contrary to good morals and other social order as stipulated under Article 103 of the Civil Act by an agreement to transfer all the properties to be acquired by oneself, or constitutes an unfair juristic act with respect to which there exists a significant imbalance between the benefits and the consideration under Article 104 of the Civil Act, and the other party constitutes an unfair juristic act with respect to which the other party was made by using the applicant’s

2) Determination

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the waiver agreement of the trial division in this case was a false indication or coercion, the expression of intent due to deception, and the act of anti-social order or unfair legal act, only with the supporting materials presented by the claimant, and there is no other supporting materials. Accordingly, the claimant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the claimant's claim for division of property is unlawful, it shall be decided as per Disposition by the Supreme Court.

Judges Su Young-hee