[1] The base period for calculating the property subject to division and its amount in the division of property, which is premised on a judicial divorce (=the date of closing argument at the fact-finding court in a divorce lawsuit)

[2] In a case where one spouse retires and received retirement allowances after the date of closing argument of the fact-finding court in a divorce lawsuit, and the period for exercising the right to claim division of property has not expired, whether the portion of the above retirement allowances, which constitutes the remuneration for labor provided during the period from marriage to the date of closing argument

[1] The property subject to division in the division of property, which is premised on a judicial divorce, and its amount shall be determined based on the date of the closing of argument in the fact-finding suit.

[2] In principle, the future retirement allowance shall not be considered as the property subject to division unless retirement and retirement allowances are determined by either spouse who works in the workplace at the time of the closing of argument in a divorce lawsuit. However, if one spouse retires and received retirement allowances later and the period for exercising the right to claim division of property has not expired, the portion of retirement allowance equivalent to the amount of retirement allowance paid during the period from the marriage to the above standard is the property subject to division.

[1] Articles 839-2 (2) and 843 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 839-2 (2) and 843 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Meu1584 delivered on March 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1752), Supreme Court Decision 94Meu1713, 1720 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2265), Supreme Court Decision 96Meu153, 1540 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1107), Supreme Court Decision 98Meu213 delivered on June 12, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1888)

Claimant (Law Firm Dongbu General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Ho-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Seoul High Court Order 99B14 dated December 29, 1999

The reappeal is dismissed.

In the division of property under the premise of a judicial divorce, the property subject to division and its amount shall be determined on the basis of the date of closing argument at the fact-finding court in a divorce lawsuit, and in principle, the future retirement benefits shall not be considered as the property subject to division unless either spouse’s retirement or retirement benefits have been finalized at that time. However, if one spouse retires and received retirement benefits, and the period of exercising the right to claim the division of property has not expired, the portion of retirement allowances equivalent to the amount of retirement allowances provided during the period from the time of marriage among the retirement allowances received to the said period from the date

In this case, the claimant and the other party have completed the marriage report on March 6, 1972 and live as a husband and wife, and the claimant has filed a divorce and consolation money claim against the other party on or around July 1996, and on August 22, 1997, the argument has been concluded and on September 5, 1997, the claimant and the other party have been sentenced to divorce and the other party shall pay 20 million won to the claimant as consolation money and the other party shall be determined on October 7, 1997. The other party was employed in the Construction Skill Training Institute under the Korea Construction Association around March 197, 198 and was employed as retirement allowance and honorary retirement allowance on or around March 7, 198 and received 17,754,430 won as retirement allowance and honorary retirement allowance, and the amount equivalent to retirement allowance paid to the other party during the marriage period from 161,921, and 1930 won as retirement allowance paid to the other party during the marriage period from 1.

However, the lower court’s determination that the entire amount of KRW 177,754,430 was the property subject to division is erroneous. However, in determining the amount of division of property, the lower court, on the other hand, considered that the remaining amount of KRW 161,921,830, out of the above amount of KRW 177,754,430, was the substance of the other party’s compensation for labor provided after the divorce, and thus, is reasonable in determining the amount of division of property as stated in its reasoning. Therefore, it cannot be accepted in the grounds of re-appeal that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal doctrine or in violation of judicial precedents

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)