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

[2] Where a debt owed by a spouse to a third party during marriage becomes subject to liquidation

[3] The case holding that "transfer income tax and resident tax", which are expenses inevitably paid to form the selling price of the sale right which is the object of division of property, shall be subject to liquidation

[1] The property subject to division in the division of property at the time of a judicial divorce and its amount shall be determined based on the date of the closing of arguments at the fact-finding court in a divorce lawsuit. As such, the court shall determine the value of individual co-property based on objective data recorded in

[2] In principle, obligations owed by one spouse to a third party during marriage are not subject to liquidation as an individual's obligation, in addition to ordinary family affairs, but are subject to liquidation if it is an obligation accompanied by the formation of a common property.

[3] The case holding that "transfer income tax and resident tax", which are expenses inevitably paid to form the selling price of the sale right which is the object of division of property, shall be subject to liquidation

[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 9Meu906 delivered on September 22, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2225) / [2] Supreme Court Order 2002No36 dated August 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2337) Supreme Court Order 2008No111 Delivered on June 9, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 140)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm CSS, Attorneys Park Sang-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The principal of the case and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Reu1429 decided November 11, 2009

The part of the judgment below regarding division of property is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Property and its amount subject to division at the time of judicial divorce shall be determined on the basis of the date on which the fact-finding hearing of a divorce lawsuit is closed. As such, the court shall determine the value of individual co-property based on objective data recorded in the record (see Supreme Court Decision 9Meu906 delivered on September 22, 2000).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the decision of the court below is just in holding that each of the proceeds from the disposal of the housing and the housing and the housing and the housing of the minor shall not remain in use for the repayment of related debts, etc. at the time of the closing of argument, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In principle, an obligation borne by one of the married couple to a third party during marriage is not subject to liquidation as an individual’s obligation, except for ordinary family affairs (see Supreme Court Order 2002S36, Aug. 28, 2002).

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the defendant sold the sales right of this case to KRW 1,30,000,000 on April 30, 2009 and received the price around that time, and the defendant thereafter reported capital gains tax of KRW 277,850,720 and resident tax of KRW 27,785,070 on October 2009 and KRW 305,635,790.

In light of the above legal principles, capital gains tax and resident tax of the above KRW 305,635,790, which the Defendant reported as the amount of voluntary payment, are expected to be inevitably disbursed in the formation of the sales price of the instant sales right, which is the property subject to division at the time of the closing of the fact-finding proceedings, shall be assessed as small property.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not consider the above transfer income tax and resident tax as a small property subject to liquidation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to division of property, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The lower court determined to the effect that the credit card payment paid by the Defendant as the sales price of the instant sales right is not deemed a small property subject to liquidation because it is difficult to view that the credit card payment of the Bank is a common price or a debt borne with the formation of a common property.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding division of property is reversed, and that part is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)