Whether a retirement allowance likely to be charged can be included in the property subject to liquidation;

Unless there are special circumstances, such as the retirement day and the retirement allowance to be received when one spouse works in his/her workplace without retirement, his/her future retirement allowance can not be included in the property subject to liquidation solely on the basis that he/she is likely to receive the future retirement allowance, and the fact that there is a possibility to receive future retirement allowance is sufficient to be considered as "other circumstances" necessary to determine the amount and method of division under Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act.

Article 839-2 (2) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Soo-hwan et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Principal of the case

Seoul High Court Decision 94Reu68, 675 decided Oct. 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

The court below recognized that the share of the real estate and the injury to the South and North Korea, at the time of the original adjudication, was made in cooperation by both the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff's contribution to it was 30 percent. In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to division of property, as discussed in the judgment below. Thus, there is no reason to discuss.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

Benefits such as salaries, etc. to be received by one spouse after divorce shall not be deemed to fall under the property subject to division under Article 839-2 (2) of the Civil Act, since it is evident that it is impossible for the couple to jointly achieve the property. In addition, in the absence of special circumstances such as where one spouse works in the workplace without retirement, the date of retirement and retirement benefits to be received are finalized, the circumstance that it is probable that he/she would receive a long-term retirement allowance does not include the property subject to liquidation, and the circumstance that it is probable that he/she will receive future retirement benefits is likely to receive such a long-term retirement allowance is sufficient when considering "other circumstances" necessary to determine the amount and method of division under Article 839-2 (2) of the Civil Act.

The record reveals that the plaintiff is a police officer whose date of retirement has not been determined. As such, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appraisal of property, as discussed in the court below's disposition that did not regard retirement allowances to be received in the future as the object of liquidation. There is no reason to interpret this.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)