Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Cattle lost after marital breakdown as a property division base
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2023Meu14016 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 이혼등·이혼등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Must cattle that existed when the marriage broke down but had decreased by the close of oral argument be valued at their earlier number as one spouse's asset in a post-divorce property division, and how should the loss be treated?
Holding
Property that existed when the marriage broke down but no longer exists at the close of oral argument may not be made the object of division; where a disposition or loss leaves a remaining asset, that remaining asset must be divided. A positive asset or debt created by one spouse, with the other having nothing to do with its formation, maintenance or burden, must not be included in the property to be divided. The Supreme Court reversed the court below for taking the plaintiff's individual identification numbers on the cattle as enough to make the plaintiff bear the risk of their loss, without examining how the herd fell from 438 head to 197 head after the separation and who received the remaining asset; if the cattle died or decreased through the defendant's responsibility, the court should presume that the defendant still holds them or take that into account in the division ratio.
Points at issue, verbatim
혼인 파탄 당시 존재하였으나 이혼 소송의 사실심 변론종결 당시에 현존하지 아니한 재산이 재산분할 대상이 되는지 여부(소극) 및 분할대상 재산의 처분 또는 멸실로 인한 대상재산을 분할대상으로 삼아야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether property that existed at the time of the breakdown of the marriage but did not exist at the time of the conclusion of oral argument in the court of fact of the divorce lawsuit becomes property subject to division (negative) and whether the substituted property arising from the disposition or destruction of property subject to division must be treated as property subject to division (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 본소와 반소의 각 재산분할 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the judgment of the court below, the portions of the judgments on the claims for division of property in the main action and the counterclaim are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
부부 일방에 의하여 생긴 적극재산이나 채무로서 상대방은 그 형성이나 유지 또는 부담과 무관한 경우에는 이를 재산분할 대상인 재산에 포함할 것이 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Where property acquired or a debt incurred by one spouse is concerned and the other spouse has no involvement in its creation, maintenance, or bearing, it should not be included in the property subject to division.
Factors
- 부부 일방에 의하여 생긴 적극재산이나 채무로서 상대방은 그 형성이나 유지 또는 부담과 무관한 경우
- 혼인관계가 파탄된 이후 변론종결일 사이에 생긴 재산관계의 변동이 혼인 중 공동으로 형성한 재산관계와 무관한 경우
- 혼인 파탄 당시 존재하였으나 이혼 소송의 사실심 변론종결 당시에 현존하지 아니한 재산이 재산분할 대상이 되는지 여부
- 분할대상 재산의 처분 또는 멸실로 인한 대상재산을 분할대상으로 삼아야 하는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• Where property acquired or a debt incurred by one spouse is concerned and the other spouse has no involvement in its creation, maintenance, or bearing
• Where the change in the property relationship occurring between the date the marriage broke down and the date of the conclusion of oral argument is unrelated to the property relationship jointly created during the marriage
• Whether property that existed at the time of the breakdown of the marriage but did not exist at the time of the conclusion of oral argument in the court of fact of the divorce lawsuit becomes property subject to division
• Whether the substituted property arising from the disposition or destruction of property subject to division must be treated as property subject to division
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 6. 20. 선고 2010므4071, 4088 전원합의체 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court en banc judgment 2010Meu4071, 4088 decided June 20, 2013
Decisions referred to
대법원 2000. 5. 2. 자 2000스13 결정(공2000하, 1427), 대법원 2013. 6. 20. 선고 2010므4071, 4088 전원합의체 판결(공2013하, 1332), 대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013므1455, 1462 판결, 대법원 2015. 6. 24. 선고 2013므2175, 2182 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where cattle died or decreased through the defendant's responsibility and cannot be traced at the close of oral argument, on what value is the presumed holding taken into the division?
The remand judgment will show how the court below examines the cause of the decrease and reflects it in the division. Any amendment to Article 839-2(2) or Article 843 of the Civil Act, or a later Supreme Court decision on valuing assets that no longer exist at the close of oral argument, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 source presents general rules on divisible property and orders remand of the property-division claims, allowing emphasis on either the stated requirements or their application to the dispute.
혼인 파탄 당시 존재하였으나 이혼 소송의 사실심 변론종결 당시에 현존하지 아니한 재산이 재산분할 대상이 되는지 여부(소극) 및 분할대상 재산의 처분 또는 멸실로 인한 대상재산을 분할대상으로 삼아야 하는지 여부(적극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where cattle died or decreased through the defendant's responsibility and cannot be traced at the close of oral argument, on what value is the presumed holding taken into the division?” vs Independent “Why did the cattle decrease, who received any substitute assets, and to what extent was the managing spouse responsible?”
The primary reading asks how to value presumed holdings once responsibility is assumed, while the independent reading asks about the cause of loss, substitute-asset ownership, and responsibility itself.
혼인 파탄 당시 존재하였으나 이혼 소송의 사실심 변론종결 당시에 현존하지 아니한 재산이 재산분할 대상이 되는지 여부(소극) 및 분할대상 재산의 처분 또는 멸실로 인한 대상재산을 분할대상으로 삼아야 하는지 여부(적극)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 Jeonju District Court, in its judgment of 29 June 2023 (2021Reu436, 443), found that as at 23 April 2019, close to the date of the marital breakdown, the plaintiff held 438 head of Korean beef cattle farmed at the farm in the plaintiff's name, and that the risk of loss through the cattle's death fell on the plaintiff. It valued all 438 head as the plaintiff's positive asset as at the close of oral argument and divided the property on that basis.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the scope of property to be divided on a judicial divorce and had failed to examine what it needed to. The defendant farmed and managed the cattle at the farm after the plaintiff left the home on 31 May 2019, while there was no evidence that the plaintiff took part in that work, so the defendant might bear the responsibility for the loss. The court should have examined how the herd fell from 438 head to 197 head near 30 November 2022 and who received the remaining asset, and either presumed that the defendant still held the cattle lost through the defendant's responsibility or reflected that in the division ratio. The property division claims in the principal and counter-actions were reversed and remanded on the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned, and the remaining appeal grounds on that part were left undecided.
Distinguishing conditions
- A change in the parties' asset relations between the breakdown and the close of oral argument that arose from circumstances connected with the property the spouses formed jointly during the marriage, since the Court excluded only changes that are unrelated.
- Property created or burdened by one spouse in circumstances where the other spouse had some connection with its formation, maintenance or burden, since that is the condition on which exclusion rests.
- A farm asset whose decrease the court below has already examined in its cause and in who received the remaining value, including any reflection of it in the division ratio.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the close of oral argument in the court below against the herd records, since the decision dates the count only as near 30 November 2022, and the valuation date is in principle the close of argument. Then check who farmed and managed the cattle after 31 May 2019, what evidence connects the plaintiff to that work, whether the decrease came through the responsibility of the spouse who kept them, and whether any of the cattle or their value remained at the close of argument.
From the official text
Points at issue
부부 일방에 의하여 생긴 적극재산이나 채무로서 상대방은 그 형성이나 유지 또는 부담과 무관한 경우, 이를 재산분할 대상인 재산에 포함할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 혼인관계가 파탄된 이후 변론종결일 사이에 생긴 재산관계의 변동이 혼인 중 공동으로 형성한 재산관계와 무관한 경우, 변동된 재산은 재산분할 대상에서 제외하여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 혼인 파탄 당시 존재하였으나 이혼 소송의 사실심 변론종결 당시에 현존하지 아니한 재산이 재산분할 대상이 되는지 여부(소극) 및 분할대상 재산의 처분 또는 멸실로 인한 대상재산을 분할대상으로 삼아야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether property acquired or a debt incurred by one spouse may be included in the property subject to division where the other spouse has no involvement in its creation, maintenance, or bearing (negative) / Whether property that has changed between the date the marriage broke down and the date of the conclusion of oral argument must be excluded from the property subject to division where the change in the property relationship is unrelated to the property relationship jointly created during the marriage (in principle, affirmative) / Whether property that existed at the time of the breakdown of the marriage but did not exist at the time of the conclusion of oral argument in the court of fact of the divorce lawsuit becomes property subject to division (negative) and whether the substituted property arising from the disposition or destruction of property subject to division must be treated as property subject to division (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 본소와 반소의 각 재산분할 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the judgment of the court below, the portions of the judgments on the claims for division of property in the main action and the counterclaim are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제839조의2 제2항, 제843조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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