A. Whether the recognition of the value of the property, which serves as the basis for calculating consolation money or division of property, ought to be based on the market price appraisal

(b) Whether the real estate is subject to division of property, if the husband contributed to internal support, such as household labor, etc. in the acquisition and maintenance of the attached real estate;

A. It shall not be deemed that the value of the property, which is the basis for calculating the consolation money or the amount of division of property, should be recognized by the market price appraisal.

B. Even if a part of the purchase price of real estate was appropriated for the proceeds from the disposal of the inherited property, if the support by the wife’s household labor, etc. was contributed significantly to the acquisition and maintenance of the real estate, such real estate is subject to division of property.

(a)Article 843 (Article 839-2) of the Civil Act (Article 839-2);

B. Supreme Court Decision 93Meu6 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1400), Supreme Court Decision 92Meu1054, 1061 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2020)

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 93Reu829 delivered on May 19, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In light of the records, the court below's recognition of the property and the market price of the defendant's property based on its macroficial evidence is just and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, such as the theory of lawsuit. It cannot be deemed that the value of the property, which is the basis of calculating the consolation money or the amount of division of property, must be recognized by the market price appraisal, and there is no data to view that the value of the court below'

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The court below's decision is justified in light of the records that the court below's decision that the above real estate is subject to division of property by stating that some of the purchase price of the real estate prior to the lawsuit was appropriated for the proceeds of disposing of the defendant's inherited property, even if it was appropriated for the proceeds of acquiring and maintaining the above real estate, and that there was considerable contribution by the plaintiff's family labor, etc. to the extent that the above real estate is subject to division of property. The court below's decision cannot be accepted merely because it criticizes the court below

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)