Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Property division object and its reference date after marital breakdown
Supreme Court, Oct. 31, 2019, 2019Meu12549 (judgment)
Case name: 이혼등·이혼및양육자지정
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In a divorce property division, must the property to be divided and its amount be fixed as of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding court of the divorce suit, and where a spouse acquired an apartment after the marital breakdown on the strength of resources formed by both parties' cooperation before the breakdown, must the apartment rather than the payments made before the breakdown be the object of division?
Holding
In principle the property and its amount are fixed as of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding court of the divorce suit. Where the change in the parties' property relations between the breakdown and that date came from a later circumstance of one spouse alone and is unrelated to the property relations formed jointly during the marriage, the changed property is excluded. Here the supply contract was concluded after married life began and about 70% of the price was paid before the breakdown, while the other spouse gave birth, kept house and cared for the child and returned to work, so even the ownership acquired after the breakdown rested on resources formed by both parties' cooperation, and the apartment, not only the pre-breakdown payments, was the object of division.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
부부의 일방이 혼인관계 파탄 이후에 취득한 재산이라도 그것이 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 쌍방의 협력에 의하여 형성된 유형·무형의 자원에 기한 것이라면 재산분할의 대상이 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where property is acquired by one party to a marriage after the breakdown of the marital relationship, if it is based on tangible or intangible resources formed through the cooperation of both parties before the breakdown of the marital relationship, it becomes subject to division of property.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 재산분할에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원가정법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns division of property, and this part of the case is remanded to the Suwon Family Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 그 액수는 이혼소송의 사실심 변론종결일을 기준으로 하여 정하는 것이 원칙이다
Unofficial English translation
the property subject to division and the amount thereof are, in principle, determined as of the date of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding instance of the divorce action
Factors
- 그것이 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 쌍방의 협력에 의하여 형성된 유형·무형의 자원에 기한 것이라면
- 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 이미 분양대금 잔금의 납입을 통해 아파트의 소유권을 취득할 것이 잠재적으로 예정되어 있었던 점
- 갑이 공급계약을 체결하고 분양대금을 납입하는 기간 동안 을은 자녀를 출산하고 가사와 육아를 돌보았을 뿐만 아니라 회사에 복직하여 소득활동을 하는 한편 가사와 육아에 관하여 을의 모친의 도움을 받은 점
- 재산분할의 대상은 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 납입한 분양대금이 아니라 사실심 변론종결일 이전에 취득한 아파트가 되어야
Unofficial English translation
• if it is based on tangible or intangible resources formed through the cooperation of both parties before the breakdown of the marital relationship,
• the fact that, before the breakdown of the marital relationship, it was already potentially anticipated that ownership of the apartment would be acquired through payment of the balance of the sale price
• the fact that, during the period when A entered into the supply contract and paid the sale price, B gave birth to a child and took care of housework and child-rearing, and at the same time returned to her company and engaged in income-generating activities, while receiving help from B's mother with respect to housework and child-rearing
• the subject of division of property should have been not the sale price paid before the breakdown of the marital relationship but the apartment acquired before the date of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding instance
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1999. 6. 11. 선고 96므1397 판결(공1999하, 1411)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 96Meu1397 decided June 11, 1999 (Gong 1999 Ha, 1411)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1999. 6. 11. 선고 96므1397 판결(공1999하, 1411), 대법원 2000. 5. 2. 자 2000스13 결정(공2000하, 1427), 대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013므1455, 1462 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much does the first-priority subscription eligibility built up through the housing savings account opened before the marriage count in deciding whether the resources behind the apartment were formed by both parties' cooperation?
The remand judgment of the Suwon Family Court will show how the reference date and the cooperation test work on this record. A later Supreme Court decision altering the reference date for division, or an amendment to Article 839-2(2) or Article 843 of the Civil Act, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary presents the requirement of joint formation of resources as a standard to be applied, while the independent applies the facts directly to the standard.
재산분할의 대상은 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 납입한 분양대금이 아니라 사실심 변론종결일 이전에 취득한 아파트가 되어야 하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How much does the first-priority subscription eligibility built up through the housing savings account opened before the marriage count in deciding whether the resources behind the apartment were formed by both parties' cooperation?” vs Independent “How should premarital subscription eligibility and payments made after marital breakdown affect each spouse's share of the apartment's value?”
The primary asks how much the premarital subscription eligibility counts in deciding whether the resources were formed by cooperation, while the independent asks how premarital eligibility and post-breakdown payments affect each spouse's share ratio.
부부의 일방이 혼인관계 파탄 이후에 취득한 재산이라도 그것이 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 쌍방의 협력에 의하여 형성된 유형·무형의 자원에 기한 것이라면 재산분할의 대상이 된다.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 Suwon Family Court, in its judgment of 23 May 2019 (2019Reu123, 130), found that the defendant held only the pre-sale right in the apartment until the breakdown, paid the balance of KRW 82,518,000 in about March 2018 and had ownership registered on 3 April 2018. It held that the apartment's economic value came from that payment of the balance, a later circumstance attributable to one spouse alone and unrelated to the property relations formed jointly during the marriage, so it included only the KRW 193,710,200 paid before the breakdown and excluded the apartment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held this could not stand. The reference date is the close of oral argument in the fact-finding court of the divorce suit, and property acquired after the breakdown must still be divided where it rests on tangible or intangible resources formed by both parties' cooperation before the breakdown. It held the court below had misunderstood the law on the object of division and the reference date, that error having affected the judgment, and reversed that part of the judgment and remanded the case to the Suwon Family Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A change in the parties' property relations between the breakdown and the close of oral argument that came from a later circumstance of one spouse alone and was unrelated to the property relations formed jointly during the marriage.
- Property one spouse acquired after the breakdown that does not rest on tangible or intangible resources formed by both parties' cooperation before the breakdown.
- Property already acquired before the marital breakdown, where there is no later change in the property relations to assess.
Record verification notes
Fix the date of the marital breakdown, the dates and amounts of the contract deposit, intermediate payments and balance, and the date the fact-finding court closed its oral argument in the divorce suit, since the division is measured at that closing date. Then gather what shows the other spouse's cooperation while the payments were being made, such as childbirth, housework and childcare, paid work and help from her mother. Finally ask whether the post-breakdown acquisition was itself brought about by a later circumstance of one spouse alone.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 재판상 이혼에 따른 재산분할에 있어 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 그 액수 산정의 기준시기(=이혼소송의 사실심 변론종결일) 및 혼인관계가 파탄된 이후 사실심 변론종결일 사이에 재산관계의 변동이 있는 경우, 변동된 재산이 재산분할의 대상이 되는지 판단하는 방법 [2] 갑이 혼인 전에 개설한 주택청약종합저축 계좌를 통해 청약주택 관련 1순위 자격요건을 충족한 상태에서 을과 혼인신고를 한 다음 아파트의 예비당첨자로 당첨되어 아파트에 관한 공급계약을 체결하였고, 그 후 별거로 인하여 혼인관계가 파탄된 시점까지 아파트의 분양대금 중 계약금 및 중도금 등을 납입하였으며, 혼인관계의 파탄 이후 잔금을 지급하고 갑 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 사안에서, 재산분할의 대상은 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 납입한 분양대금이 아니라 사실심 변론종결일 이전에 취득한 아파트가 되어야 하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] In division of property upon judicial divorce, the property subject to division and the time point as of which the amount thereof is calculated (= the date of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding instance of the divorce action) and, where there is a change in property relations between the time the marital relationship broke down and the date of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding instance, the method of determining whether the changed property becomes subject to division of property [2] A case where, in a situation in which A, having already satisfied the first-priority eligibility requirements for subscription housing through a housing subscription comprehensive savings account opened before the marriage, registered the marriage with B, was subsequently selected as a reserve winner of an apartment and entered into a supply contract for the apartment, thereafter paid the down payment and the interim payments, among the sale price of the apartment, up until the point in time when the marital relationship broke down due to living apart, and, after the breakdown of the marital relationship, paid the balance and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in A's name, the subject of division of property should have been not the sale price paid before the breakdown of the marital relationship but the apartment acquired before the date of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding instance, yet the court below decided otherwise, and the Supreme Court held that such determination of the court below was in error due to misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 재판상 이혼에 따른 재산분할을 할 때 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 그 액수는 이혼소송의 사실심 변론종결일을 기준으로 하여 정하는 것이 원칙이다. 다만 혼인관계가 파탄된 이후 사실심 변론종결일 사이에 생긴 재산관계의 변동이 부부 중 일방에 의한 후발적 사정에 의한 것으로서 혼인 중 공동으로 형성한 재산관계와 무관하다는 등 특별한 사정이 있는 경우 그 변동된 재산은 재산분할 대상에서 제외하여야 하나, 부부의 일방이 혼인관계 파탄 이후에 취득한 재산이라도 그것이 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 쌍방의 협력에 의하여 형성된 유형·무형의 자원에 기한 것이라면 재산분할의 대상이 된다. [2] 갑이 혼인 전에 개설한 주택청약종합저축 계좌를 통해 청약주택 관련 1순위 자격요건을 충족한 상태에서 을과 혼인신고를 한 다음 아파트의 예비당첨자로 당첨되어 아파트에 관한 공급계약을 체결하였고, 그 후 별거로 인하여 혼인관계가 파탄된 시점까지 아파트의 분양대금 중 계약금 및 중도금 등을 납입하였으며, 혼인관계의 파탄 이후 잔금을 지급하고 갑 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 사안에서, 갑이 을과 혼인생활을 시작한 후에 아파트에 관한 공급계약을 체결하였고, 이후 혼인관계가 파탄에 이르기 전까지 계약금 및 중도금으로 아파트의 분양대금 중 70%가량을 납입함으로써 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 이미 분양대금 잔금의 납입을 통해 아파트의 소유권을 취득할 것이 잠재적으로 예정되어 있었던 점, 갑이 공급계약을 체결하고 분양대금을 납입하는 기간 동안 을은 자녀를 출산하고 가사와 육아를 돌보았을 뿐만 아니라 회사에 복직하여 소득활동을 하는 한편 가사와 육아에 관하여 을의 모친의 도움을 받은 점 등에 비추어 설령 갑이 혼인관계 파탄 이후 아파트의 소유권을 취득하였다고 하더라도, 이는 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 갑과 을 쌍방의 협력에 의하여 형성된 유형·무형의 자원에 터 잡은 것이므로, 재산분할의 대상은 혼인관계 파탄 이전에 납입한 분양대금이 아니라 사실심 변론종결일 이전에 취득한 아파트가 되어야 하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 재산분할에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원가정법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns division of property, and this part of the case is remanded to the Suwon Family Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제839조의2 제2항, 제843조 [2] 민법 제839조의2 제2항, 제843조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger