[1] Whether an apartment is the proprietary property of one of the married couple before marriage, but if the other party has cooperateed in the maintenance of apartment, such as repayment of loan and debt, etc. after marriage, it can be

[2] The case dismissing a claim for the payment of consolation money any longer since the obligation to pay consolation money was partially fulfilled as part of the amount paid by judicial compromise

[1] Although an apartment is the husband's proprietary property acquired before the marriage, if the wife after the marriage is engaged in domestic affairs and childcare, while the wife obtains income from the teaching school and then pays part of the debt to the above apartment and the amount of the decision made with the income accrued during the marital life to the ASEAN, which led to the husband's failure to fully cooperate in maintaining the above apartment, such as having the husband partly repay the debt of the borrowed loan to the arche who was borne by the husband in relation to the purchase of the above apartment before the marriage, and if the wife prevents the reduction of the amount of the debt

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which rejected the claim for the payment of consolation money more than anything since the obligation to pay consolation money was partially fulfilled as a result of judicial compromise

[1] Article 839-2 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 806 and 843 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Meu1054 and 1061 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2020) Supreme Court Decision 94Meu734 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3125) Supreme Court Decision 94Meu598 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 492) Supreme Court Decision 95Meu175 and 182 delivered on October 12, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3780)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Chang-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The principal of the case and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 93Reu364, 371 delivered on April 19, 1995

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and sixth grounds for appeal

In full view of the relevant evidences, the court below acknowledged the facts as follows. The above apartment is the defendant's proprietary property acquired before marriage with the plaintiff (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter only the plaintiff is the plaintiff). However, the plaintiff is engaged in domestic affairs and child care, while receiving income from the plaintiff's occupation after marriage, and delivered the defendant's father with the amount of the decision made by the plaintiff and the defendant's father, which made up of the loan obligation for the above apartment, and made up of the loan from the plaintiff's father's father's father's father's husband's husband's husband's husband's loan obligation for the above apartment purchase before marriage. The court below determined that it is reasonable to divide the plaintiff's property or the defendant's debt that the plaintiff's own, into one's own property and the defendant's claim for division of property and the defendant's counterclaim for division of property. According to the records and evidence of division of property, the judgment of the court below is without merit and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above division of property.

2. On the seventh and eighth points

The court below acknowledged the facts as a whole, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for consolation money and the defendant's counterclaim for consolation money, respectively, since the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant reached the breakdown due to the causes attributable to both parties, as long as the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant are liable to pay consolation money for mental distress suffered by each other. In full view of various circumstances in the judgment, including the fact that the defendant's causes are more severe than the plaintiff's causes attributable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's obligation to pay consolation money shall be exempted and the defendant's obligation to pay consolation money shall be deemed to have been discharged as part of 32,00,000 won in the judgment that the defendant paid to the plaintiff according to the judicial settlement in the judgment. According to the records and evidence, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and it is not erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as to the claim for consolation money, and there is no ground to accept the argument that the above judgment of the court below constitutes an unlawful act that clearly stated the scope of res judicata effect as to the cited amount.

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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)