Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Valuation date in post-divorce property division
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2025Seu595 (ruling)
Case name: 재산분할[재판상 이혼이 확정된 후 재산분할심판을 청구한 경우 재산분할의 기준시점이 문제된 사안]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a property division is claimed after a judicial divorce has become final, is the date the mediation on divorce was concluded the basis for the property and its value, may the court determine that subject and value ex officio, and may a later external and subsequent change in value be taken into account in fixing the value?
Holding
One spouse may claim division from the other under Article 839-2(1) of the Civil Act, and that provision applies to a claim arising from a judicial divorce by Article 843. Because a property division case is a non-contentious family case of class (ma), the court may, unlike in civil litigation, find the facts and gather evidence on its own motion, and so may determine the subject and value of the division without being tied to the parties' pleadings. In principle the property and its amount are fixed as at the close of argument in the divorce action, and where a mediation on divorce was concluded, as at the date it was concluded. Where, between the date the divorce became final and the close of the oral inquiry in the division case, an external and subsequent circumstance has arisen on property formed and kept by the joint efforts of the spouses during the marriage, and assigning the resulting gain or loss to one spouse would clearly fail to serve the purpose of a fair liquidation and distribution of the joint property, that circumstance may be taken into account in fixing the value.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
재판상 이혼을 전제로 한 재산분할에서 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 그 액수는 이혼소송의 사실심 변론종결일을 기준으로 정하는 것이 원칙이다.
Unofficial English translation
As a rule, in property division premised on a judicial divorce, the property subject to division and the amount thereof are determined based on the date of the conclusion of argument at the fact-finding instance of the divorce action.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
재항고를 기각한다. 재항고비용은 청구인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed. The costs of the re-appeal are borne by the applicant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
재판상 이혼소송에서 이혼하기로 하는 조정이 성립한 이후 어느 한쪽이 상대방에 대하여 재산분할을 청구하는 경우에도 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 액수는 조정이 성립한 날을 기준으로 정하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where, after mediation to divorce has been concluded in a judicial divorce action, one party claims property division against the other party, the property subject to division and the amount thereof must be determined based on the date on which the mediation was concluded.
Factors
- 법원이 직권으로 사실의 탐지와 필요하다고 인정하는 증거의 조사를 할 수 있으므로
- 재산분할 제도가 혼인관계 해소 시 부부가 혼인 중 공동으로 형성한 재산을 청산·분배하는 것을 주된 목적으로 하는 것으로서
- 혼인 중 공동의 노력으로 형성·유지한 부동산 등에 발생한 외부적, 후발적인 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
Unofficial English translation
• since the court may, ex officio, ascertain facts and examine evidence it deems necessary,
• in that the property division system has as its main purpose the liquidation and distribution, upon dissolution of the marital relationship, of property formed jointly by the spouses during marriage, and
• as external and subsequent circumstances arising in real property, etc., formed and maintained through the joint efforts during marriage, and
• where there are special circumstances, such as where attributing the resulting gains or losses to one party would bring about a result manifestly contrary to the purpose of the property division system, namely the fair liquidation and distribution of the spouses' joint property,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 7. 13. 선고 2017므11856, 11863 판결(공2023하, 1467)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Meu11856, 2017Meu11863 decided July 13, 2023 (Gong 2023 Ha, 1467)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2000. 5. 2. 자 2000스13 결정(공2000하, 1427), 대법원 2013. 6. 20. 선고 2010므4071, 4088 전원합의체 판결(공2013하, 1332), 대법원 2022. 5. 12. 선고 2021므16933 판결, 대법원 2023. 7. 13. 선고 2017므11856, 11863 판결(공2023하, 1467)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What evidence is sufficient to fix the market value of the property used when an external, subsequent change in value is taken into account in post-divorce property division?
A later decision changing the reference date for property division after a judicial divorce, or the reasoning on special circumstances, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 839-2 or Article 843 of the Civil Act, to Article 2(1)(ii)(b)4 or Article 34 of the Family Litigation Act, or to Article 11 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What evidence is sufficient to fix the market value of the property used when an external, subsequent change in value is taken into account in post-divorce property division?” vs Independent “What magnitude or type of post-divorce property-value change is sufficient to satisfy the exceptional-circumstances requirement?”
The primary asks what evidence establishes market value, while the independent asks what magnitude or type of change satisfies the exceptional-circumstances requirement.
재판상 이혼을 전제로 한 재산분할에서 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 그 액수는 이혼소송의 사실심 변론종결일을 기준으로 정하는 것이 원칙이다.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 Daejeon Family Court, in its ruling of 28 March 2025 (2024Beu5052), fixed the property and its amount in principle as at 15 September 2022, the date the mediation on divorce was concluded before the Hongseong Branch of the Daejeon Family Court. It nevertheless valued the apartment, which the respondent had bought on 23 December 2021 for KRW 193,600,000 and whose market value had been KRW 267,500,000 around the time the mediation was concluded, at KRW 190,000,000, the value around the close of the oral inquiry in November 2024, because assigning the loss caused by the sharp fall in value after the mediation to the respondent alone could run against the purpose of a fair liquidation and distribution of the joint property.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that reading. Measured against the law it set out and the record, the court below had not violated any provision on the point of valuation in a way affecting the outcome. The Justices of the participating Bench dismissed the applicant's re-appeal unanimously and put its costs on the applicant.
Distinguishing conditions
- A change in value that arose before the reference date, since the exception speaks of a circumstance arising between the date the divorce became final and the close of the oral inquiry in the division case.
- A case in which the divorce was obtained by judgment rather than by a mediation, since the reference point then closes with the argument in the divorce action.
- Property that was not formed or kept by the joint efforts of the spouses during the marriage, since the exception speaks only of property so formed and kept.
Record verification notes
Fix the four dates first: the marriage registration on 19 December 1997, the purchase of the property on 23 December 2021, the conclusion of the mediation on divorce on 15 September 2022, and the close of the oral inquiry in the division case in November 2024. Then trace when the value changed and how it changed, since the exception turns on an external and subsequent circumstance and on whether assigning the resulting gain or loss to one side alone would clearly defeat a fair liquidation of the joint property. Compare the file with the Court's reasoning in Supreme Court Decision 2017Meu11856, 11863, on which the exception here rests, and note that the Court itself may investigate the subject and value of the division.
From the official text
Points at issue
법원이 재산분할의 대상과 가액을 직권으로 조사·판단할 수 있는지 여부(적극) / 재판상 이혼을 전제로 한 재산분할에서 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 그 액수를 정하는 기준 시점(=이혼소송의 사실심 변론종결일) 및 재판상 이혼소송에서 이혼하기로 하는 조정이 성립한 경우에도 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 액수는 조정이 성립한 날을 기준으로 정하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 재판상 이혼이 확정된 후 청구된 재산분할심판 사건의 사실심 심문종결 시까지 사이에 혼인 중 공동의 노력으로 형성·유지한 부동산 등에 발생한 외부적, 후발적인 사정이 있는 경우, 이를 분할대상 재산의 가액 산정에 참작할 수 있는지 여부(한정 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the court may ex officio investigate and determine the subject and value of property division (affirmative) / The reference date for determining the property subject to division and the amount thereof in property division premised on a judicial divorce (i.e., the date of the conclusion of argument at the fact-finding instance of the divorce action) and whether, even where mediation to divorce is concluded in a judicial divorce action, the property subject to division and the amount thereof must be determined based on the date on which the mediation was concluded (affirmative) / Whether, where external and subsequent circumstances arise, during the period up to the conclusion of the hearing at the fact-finding instance of a property division adjudication case filed after a judicial divorce became final, in real property, etc., formed and maintained through the joint efforts of the spouses during marriage, such circumstances may be taken into account in calculating the value of the property subject to division (limited affirmative)
Summary of the holding
협의상 이혼한 어느 한쪽은 다른 쪽에 대하여 재산분할을 청구할 수 있고(민법 제839조의2 제1항), 재판상 이혼에 따른 재산분할청구권에도 민법 제839조의2가 준용된다(민법 제843조). 재산분할사건은 마류 가사비송사건에 해당한다[가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (나)목 4)]. 가사비송절차에 있어서는 민사소송의 경우와 달리 당사자의 변론에만 의존하는 것이 아니고 법원이 직권으로 사실의 탐지와 필요하다고 인정하는 증거의 조사를 할 수 있으므로(가사소송법 제34조 본문, 비송사건절차법 제11조), 법원으로서는 당사자의 주장에 구애되지 아니하고 재산분할의 대상과 가액을 직권으로 조사·판단할 수 있다. 재판상 이혼을 전제로 한 재산분할에서 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 그 액수는 이혼소송의 사실심 변론종결일을 기준으로 정하는 것이 원칙이다. 재판상 이혼소송에서 이혼하기로 하는 조정이 성립한 이후 어느 한쪽이 상대방에 대하여 재산분할을 청구하는 경우에도 분할의 대상이 되는 재산과 액수는 조정이 성립한 날을 기준으로 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, 재판상 이혼이 확정된 후 청구된 재산분할심판 사건의 사실심 심문종결 시까지 사이에 혼인 중 공동의 노력으로 형성·유지한 부동산 등에 발생한 외부적, 후발적인 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
재항고를 기각한다. 재항고비용은 청구인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed. The costs of the re-appeal are borne by the applicant.
Provisions referred to
민법 제839조의2 제1항, 제843조, 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (나)목, 제34조, 비송사건절차법 제11조
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