[1] Where the property under the name of a third party is subject to division of property

[2] The elements for a division of property to be the property that one of the married couple has succeeded or has already disposed of on the basis of the inherited property

[3] The method of appraising the property value, which is the basis for the calculation of the amount of division of property

[1] Even if the property under the name of a third party is owned by a property trusted by one of the married couple or a property substantially controlled by one of the married couple, which is formed through mutual cooperation between the married couple or formed through the type and intangible resources formed by mutual cooperation between the married couple, the property shall be subject to division of property.

[2] If one of the married couple has contributed directly or indirectly to the other party's family labor, etc. in acquiring and maintaining the other party's family labor, it shall be subject to division of property. The same applies to the property donated by one of the married couple to a third party.

[3] The property division system under Article 839-2 of the Civil Act mainly aims to liquidate and distribute the actual common property acquired during the marriage. Thus, as long as the couple’s divorces have property achieved through mutual cooperation, the court shall, upon the party’s request, determine the amount and method of division by taking into account all the circumstances of both parties, such as the degree of contribution to the formation of the property. The value of the property, which serves as the basis for the calculation of the amount of property division, shall be appraised based on objectivity and rationality.

[1] Article 839-2 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 839-2 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 839-2 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Meu1434 delivered on April 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1356) / [3] Supreme Court Order 2002Switzerland36 delivered on August 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2337)

Claimant

Other Party

Daegu District Court Order 2007BB44 dated September 29, 2008

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below held that the claimant has the deposit withdrawal amount as stated in the judgment at the time of the date of closing argument of the fact-finding court in a divorce lawsuit and included it in the petitioner's active property. In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standard period for division of property

Meanwhile, even if the property under the name of a third party is owned by the property held in title by one of the married couple or the property substantially controlled by one of the married couple, which is formed through mutual cooperation between the married couple or formed through the tangible or intangible resources formed through mutual cooperation between the married couple (see Supreme Court Decision 96Meu1434, Apr. 10, 1998). Therefore, the court below's decision on the same purport is just to consider the deposit withdrawal amount as the object of property division in the name of the claimant and the other party as the object of property division, and there is no error in the incomplete trial.

2. If one of the married couple has contributed directly or indirectly to the other party's family labor, etc. in acquiring and maintaining the other party's family labor, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 96Meu1434 delivered on April 10, 1998) even if the real estate is inherited or already disposed of, it shall be subject to division of property (Supreme Court Decision 96Meu1434 delivered on April 10, 1998). Since the same applies to the property donated by one of the married couple to a third party, it shall be deemed that the money provided by the claimant's father was used as the purchase fund of the land and the building on the north-gu at the Posi-si (hereinafter omitted) and the other party's common property, and it

3. In addition, the lower court determined that the other party’s loan obligation of the other party as indicated in the holding is the obligation subject to liquidation, and that the other party’s retirement pension to be received in the future is not possible to determine the remaining life of the other party, and thus, the circumstances that the other party received such retirement pension can not be immediately included in the property division, but should be considered in determining the method and degree of property division, and raised the property division ratio from the first instance court to 45%.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, etc.

4. The property division system under Article 839-2 of the Civil Act mainly aims to liquidate and divide the actual common property acquired during the marriage. As long as there exists property acquired by the couple through mutual cooperation when the couple divorced, the court shall determine the amount and method of division by taking into account all the circumstances of both parties, such as the degree of contribution to the formation of the property upon the party’s request, and the value of the property, which forms the basis for the calculation of the amount of property division, shall be assessed based on objectivity and rationality (see Supreme Court Order 2002S36, Aug. 28, 2002).

In the same purport, the court below is just in determining the value of the real estate held as joint property according to the appraised value of the appraisal institution, taking into account the circumstances in its reasoning, and where the property subject to division is ultimately reverted to the current ownership, and the other party selects the method of paying money which falls short of the amount ultimately due to such division of property to the claimant, and there is no error of law

5. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)