[1] Whether the future retirement pay can be included in the liquidation property (negative)

[2] Whether the ability to acquire property as a professor of economics who holds a doctor’s degree is sufficient in consideration of “other circumstances” under Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Code (affirmative)

[3] Matters to be considered by the court in ordering division of property

[1] Unless there are special circumstances such as the date of retirement and the amount of retirement benefits to be received when one spouse worked in his/her workplace without retirement, the future retirement benefits can not be included in the property subject to liquidation on the sole basis of the possibility that he/she would receive the future retirement benefits, and the possibility of receiving future retirement benefits is sufficient to be considered as "other circumstances necessary to determine the amount and method of division of property under Article 839-2 (2) of the Civil Code".

[2] It is sufficient to consider the ability to acquire property as a professor of economics who holds a doctor’s degree as “other circumstances necessary to determine the amount and method of division of property under Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act”.

[3] In the division of property, the court shall determine the method, ratio or amount of the property, taking into account the amount of the property achieved by the cooperation of both parties, and other circumstances.

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

[1] 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 (Gong1997Sang, 1107) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Meu501 delivered on May 25, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 181), Supreme Court Decision 97Meu1486, 1493 (Gong198, 767) delivered on February 13, 1998

Plaintiff (Attorney O Byung-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 97Reu1402 delivered on January 16, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Recognizing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it seems appropriate for the court below to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant as KRW 20,000,00, taking into account the age of the plaintiff and the defendant, occupation, period of marriage, circumstances leading to the dissolution of marriage, degree of responsibility of both parties, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, and it cannot be said that the consolation money is too small in light of the empirical rule and social norms, and that the above amount of consolation money has

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Unless there are special circumstances such as the retirement day and retirement allowance to be received when one side of the married couple worked in the workplace without yet to retire, the future retirement allowance can not be included in the property subject to liquidation on the sole basis of the possibility that he would receive the future retirement allowance, and the possibility of receiving the future retirement allowance is sufficient when considering the "other circumstances necessary to determine the amount and method of division of property under Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act" (see Supreme Court Decision 94Meu1713, 1720, May 23, 1995). Further, it is sufficient to consider the economic ability of a professor with a doctor's doctor's degree as above as a "other circumstances".

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the defendant's estimated amount of retirement lump sum payment was 44,290,370, and the fact that the defendant had a doctor's degree, and determined the amount and method of division of property by taking account of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments including the above circumstances, and such circumstances should also be considered as "other circumstances necessary to determine the amount and method of division under Article 839 (2) of the Civil Act". The arguments are without merit.

B. According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff was left separately from the defendant on May 28, 1995, and purchased a arche car during the same month. Thus, it is legitimate for the court below to regard the above car as the property acquired from the income acquired during the marital life and include it in the property division subject to the property division, and it is not reasonable to exclude the above car as the property division subject to division or to treat it differently. The argument is without merit.

C. In the division of property, the court shall determine the method, ratio or amount of the property achieved through cooperation between the parties and other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Meu501, May 25, 1993; 97Meu1486, 1493, Feb. 13, 1998); and 210,000,000 won out of the net asset value of the original and the defendant subject to the division of property is an apartment owned by the defendant, and the above apartment was purchased with the help of the above Nonparty, who is the father of the defendant. Considering the fact that the court below considered the Plaintiff’s contribution as 1/4,00,000,000 among the net asset value of the original and the defendant subject to the division of property, the plaintiff and the defendant was an apartment owned by the defendant, and that the above apartment was purchased with the help of the above non-party, who is the father of the defendant, is reasonable, and it does not violate the rules of experience and social norms.

3. 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)