Valuation date and later changes in de facto union property division

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25

A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.

Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)

Lower-court contrast & scope of application

Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding

Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 24 May 2017 (2016Reu22493, 2016Reu22509), found that the parties agreed to divorce on 17 February 2006 but kept their de facto union alive until about May 2013. It held the two apartments to be assets to be divided and valued them at actual transaction prices closest to the close of oral argument, KRW 930 million and KRW 910 million, refused to treat KRW 179 million of the loan recorded in the notarial deed as the plaintiff's asset, and excluded KRW 12.91 million of interest arising after 6 June 2013 from the liabilities to be divided, as interest after the union ended. It set the shares at 65 per cent for the plaintiff and 35 per cent for the defendant, rejected both claims for consolation damages, allowed the defendant contact with the child and ordered child support of KRW 1.2 million a month.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the date of dissolution is the reference point, and that only where special circumstances make attributing the resulting benefit or loss to one side grossly inconsistent with the purpose of an equitable settlement of the joint property may later external circumstances be taken into account. It then held that, although some parts of the appellate reasons were not entirely appropriate, the conclusion was sustainable, and found no error affecting the judgment in the agreed divorce's effect, the prescription period for the property division claim, the establishment and breach of the de facto union, the scope of the claim, the valuation date, or the extent of contact and child support. Both appeals were dismissed unanimously, with the costs of each borne by the appellant who caused them.

Distinguishing conditions

• A property division in which no special circumstances exist, so that attributing the change in value after dissolution to one side is not grossly inconsistent with an equitable settlement, leaving the valuation fixed at the date of dissolution.
• A circumstance that is not external and later-arising on property formed and maintained by the couple's joint efforts during the union, since the exception is written for such circumstances and such property.
• A consolation money, contact or child support claim in which no question of valuing the property to be divided arises.

Record verification notes

Fix the date the de facto union was dissolved and the date of the close of oral argument in the file, and list every change in value of each property falling between them. Then test each item, price movement or interest charge against the special-circumstances requirement, and confirm that the property was formed and maintained by the couple's joint efforts, since the rule reaches only such property. Remember that the Court accepted the appellate valuation only in result, noting that parts of the reasons were not entirely appropriate.

From the official text

Points at issue

사실혼 해소를 원인으로 한 재산분할에서 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 액수를 정하는 기준 시기(=사실혼이 해소된 날) / 사실혼 해소 이후 재산분할 청구사건의 사실심 변론종결 시까지 사이에 혼인 중 공동의 노력으로 형성·유지한 부동산 등에 발생한 외부적, 후발적 사정이 있는 경우, 이를 분할대상 재산의 가액 산정에 참작할 수 있는지 여부(한정 적극)

Summary of the holding

사실혼 해소를 원인으로 한 재산분할에서 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 액수는 사실혼이 해소된 날을 기준으로 하여 정하여야 한다. 한편 재산분할 제도가 혼인관계 해소 시 부부가 혼인 중 공동으로 형성한 재산을 청산·분배하는 것을 주된 목적으로 하는 것으로서, 부부 쌍방의 협력으로 이룩한 적극재산 및 그 형성에 수반하여 부담한 채무 등을 분할하여 각자에게 귀속될 몫을 정하기 위한 것이므로, 사실혼 해소 이후 재산분할 청구사건의 사실심 변론종결 시까지 사이에 혼인 중 공동의 노력으로 형성·유지한 부동산 등에 발생한 외부적, 후발적 사정으로서, 그로 인한 이익이나 손해를 일방에게 귀속시키는 것이 부부 공동재산의 공평한 청산·분배라고 하는 재산분할제도의 목적에 현저히 부합하지 않는 결과를 가져오는 등의 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 이를 분할대상 재산의 가액 산정에 참작할 수 있다.

Order

상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고(반소피고)의 상고로 생긴 부분은 원고(반소피고)가, 피고(반소원고)의 상고로 생긴 부분은 피고(반소원고)가 각 부담한다.

Provisions referred to

민법 제839조의2