(a) The method of determining the ratio or amount of division of property where one side of the married couple bears the obligations subject to liquidation;

B. The case holding that the division ratio of property of the so-called professional mediation division is excessive and illegal

A. In a case where one side of the married couple bears the obligation to a third party during the marriage, the obligation accompanied by the formation of a common property among the said obligation is subject to liquidation. As such, in a case where one side of the married couple bears the obligation subject to liquidation as above, the proportion or amount of division of property shall be determined, taking this into consideration, in determining the proportion or amount of division, based on the balance obtained by deducting the said obligation from the value of the property in a case where monetary payment is ordered, and in a case where the property is jointly owned by acquiring a share of an object, the proportion of division shall

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that ordering the wife to register the transfer of ownership of one half of the building due to the division of property is excessive and is considerably contrary to the principle of equity, considering the circumstances where the wife's contribution to the formation of the building subject to division of property is merely the back part of the family affairs, and there was no particular economic activity.

Article 843 (Civil Act)

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Meu501 delivered on May 25, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1881)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Reu30 delivered on July 7, 1994

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding division of property is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and acknowledged the facts of the judgment, and ordered the payment of consolation money to the plaintiff and the defendant as it judged that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant of this case occurred due to extremely unfair treatment against the plaintiff. In light of records and relevant evidences, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to calculation of consolation money, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the fact that the building of this case was constructed by borrowing 4,00,000 won from the plaintiff's friendship (the plaintiff's wife appears to be a clerical error in writing) due to the lack of construction funds in the construction of new buildings listed in the attached list of the judgment of the court below (limited to the building of this case) around 1987, when the plaintiff was engaged in domestic work after marriage with the defendant, and considering the various circumstances of the statement, it was reasonable to have the plaintiff acquire 1/2 of the building of this case by taking into account that the building of this case was built by cooperation between the plaintiff and the defendant.

However, in a case where one spouse bears the obligation to a third party during marriage, the obligation that is accompanied by the formation of a common property among the said obligation is subject to liquidation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Meu501, May 25, 1993). Thus, in a case where one spouse bears the obligation that is subject to liquidation as above, the proportion or amount of division of property should be determined based on the balance obtained by deducting the amount of the obligation from the value of the property in a case where monetary payment is ordered. In a case where the other spouse bears the obligation that is subject to liquidation as above, the proportion of division should be determined reasonably by reducing the ratio of acquisition by the other party.

However, according to witness Kim Jong-chul and Lee Jong-young's testimony rejected by the court below, the defendant borrowed 4,800,000 won from the plaintiff's pro-Japanese at the time of construction of the building in this case, and used 1,80,000 won as construction costs by borrowing 1,80,000 won from the agricultural cooperative and completed the building, and concluded a lease contract with others for the building in this case and repaid 4,00,000 won borrowed from the plaintiff's pro-Japanese. If that fact, the defendant's debts owed to the above defendant cannot be deemed as the debts borne by the formation of the building in this case, which are the above common property, and as mentioned above, the division ratio, etc. should be reasonably determined in consideration of the circumstances that the above debts belong to the defendant as stated above. Furthermore, as acknowledged by the court below and records, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's contribution to the formation of the building in this case was not the back of the building in exclusive charge of the plaintiff's domestic affairs, and it does not seem to be included in the property division of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding division of property is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)