[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] The case reversing the court below's decision that the ratio of division of property recognized by the court and the ratio of the value of the property belonging to each of the married couple to the property under the premise that the market price of the property subject to division of property is lower than the market price at the time of the conclusion of the arguments in the fact-finding proceedings, due to a sudden change in economic situation, not based on objective data

[1] The property subject to division in the division of property at the time of judicial divorce and its amount shall be determined based on the date on which the arguments are concluded 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 the records at the time of closing the argument. In a case where the ratio of the value of property which belongs to each of the married couple and the ratio of the property division recognized by the court

[2] The case reversing the court below's decision that the ratio of division of property recognized by the court and the ratio of the value of the property belonging to each of the married couple to the property under the premise that the market price of the property subject to division of property is lower than the market price at the time of the conclusion of the arguments in fact-finding proceedings, due to changes in economic situation, not based on objective data, such as market

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

[1] Supreme Court Order 2000Switzerland13 dated May 2, 2000 (Gong200Ha, 1427)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Byung-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Reu1065 delivered on April 21, 1999

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

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the facts established by the court below in light of the evidence adopted by the court below and recognized all the facts which the plaintiff and the defendant participated in the formation and maintenance of their common property after marriage, and then determine the property subject to division due to divorce by the plaintiff and the defendant as the ownership of each real property listed in the attached list No. 1 of the judgment below in the plaintiff's name, the debts related thereto, and the active property listed in the above attached list No. 2 of the defendant's name, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the method of division of the common property of this case, it is reasonable to divide the above property in kind or by means of auction division, and to pay and liquidate it in money if it is not reasonable to divide the ownership and debts of each of the above property in the name of the current names, and it is reasonable to divide it into the above property in the name of the defendant 1 in the name of the above 7-mentioned situation such as the form of common property of this case, the current status of use and the current acquisition process, and the above 1-mentioned property in the name of the defendant. Considering the above 7-mentioned circumstance, the court below determined that it is reasonable to determine that the value of each of the above property in the name of the plaintiff 2 in the above 7-mentioned list of real property belonging to the defendant 1 in consideration of the fact that there is a difference in the property's contribution to the formation of common property of this case, and that there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be no money equivalent to the above 6-mentioned net property's contribution to the plaintiff 2's net property.

In light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that determined that the ratio of division of property of this case (the original court stated that the ratio of division of property of this case (which is referred to as "the ratio of division of property" is referred to as "the ratio of division of property of this case") is 40% and 60% of the defendant in the formation and maintenance of the common property of this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the division of property, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

However, the property subject to division at the time of judicial divorce and its amount shall be determined on the basis of 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 property based on objective data recorded in the records at the time of the closing of arguments. If the ratio of the property value attributed to each husband and wife and the ratio of the division of property recognized by the court is different, the difference shall be paid and liquidated in cash. Nevertheless, the court below did not order the Plaintiff to pay and liquidate the amount of property equivalent to the property belonging to the Defendant exceeding the ratio determined by itself, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, such as the decline in the overall real estate price after the market price appraisal or the decline in the price of specific property due to the fluctuation in exchange rates. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the division of property, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Even if the purport of the judgment of the court below is presumed to have been premised on the economic situation above that the ratio of property division and the value of property belonging to each claimant has disappeared at the time of the trial.

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)