Divorce property division case: consolation money dismissed for shared fault, KRW 300 million in property division, and custody

If both spouses are found to share responsibility for the breakdown of a marriage, how are divorce, property division and custody decided? In this case, the court granted the divorce but dismissed the claim for consolation money (damages for emotional distress), while deciding property division, custody, child support and visitation separately and in concrete terms. Using this case, we explain how the question of whose fault is greater is separated from the decisions on property division and custody.

Background: 13 years of marriage and repeated separations

The couple had been married for nearly 13 years and raised two children. The husband earned money running a company, and the wife took charge of housework and childcare, and more recently also ran a small shop.

On the surface they looked ordinary, but trust had been shaken for a long time. Over several years, separations and the filing and withdrawal of applications for divorce by agreement were repeated, and one autumn the conflict grew out of control. The wife left home citing her husband's suspicion and assault, and the husband, suspecting his wife of having an affair, attached a GPS tracker to her car. The divorce lawsuit began with neither trusting the other.

What the court looks at first in a judicial divorce

The Civil Act provides, as one of the grounds for judicial divorce, a serious reason that makes it difficult to continue the marriage. In principle, a spouse who is mainly responsible for the breakdown of the marriage cannot easily seek a divorce on the basis of their own fault.

That does not mean a claim for divorce is always blocked because of a single past fault. The Supreme Court has maintained the position that the circumstances leading to the breakdown, the weight of each party's responsibility, the length of separation, the attitude of the other spouse, the welfare of the children and the possibility of restoring the marriage must all be weighed together.

In this divorce case as well, the court found that the breakdown of the marriage could not be explained by one party's responsibility alone. The circumstances that raised suspicion of a relationship with a third party, the assault, the unlawful collection of location information, the endless blame and quarrels, and the lack of effort to restore the relationship were all taken into account.

Who was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage?

The court first recognized that the couple's marital relationship had collapsed beyond repair. It then examined responsibility separately.

• The wife's side: during the marriage, she showed affection for another acquaintance and asked to keep meeting, which became one cause of the breakdown.
• The husband's side: he hit his wife and injured her eardrum, secretly attached a GPS tracker to her car, and displayed his anger violently even in front of the children.

The court's conclusion was that the faults of both parties were evenly matched. It found that both spouses had failed to try to understand and care for each other, so trust was broken, and it was difficult to conclude that either party's fault was heavier. As a result, the wife's claim for consolation money was dismissed. This means that when responsibility is equal, it is difficult to make one party pay compensation for emotional harm.

Property division: KRW 300 million set by net assets and contribution

The part of this case most worth noting is property division. The husband's positive assets, including land and buildings, shares in several listed companies, cars and deposits, totaled about KRW 1.75 billion, and after deducting debts of about KRW 710 million, his net assets were about KRW 1.04 billion. The wife's net assets, including deposits, insurance and a lease deposit, were about KRW 300 million.

Taking into account that the wife had taken full charge of housework and childcare for 13 years and her share in accumulating and preserving the property, the court set the property division ratio at 45 percent for the wife and 55 percent for the husband.

The wife's share calculated at this ratio was about KRW 680 million. After deducting the property the wife already held, the judgment ordered the husband to pay the wife KRW 300 million in cash as property division.

Is property excluded from division if it is registered in someone else's name?

There is a question that often comes up in property division consultations: whether real estate registered in the name of a parent or sibling can also be subject to property division. The answer is not simple. The registered name is an important starting point, but the court also looks at where the money actually came from, how the property was acquired, who actually manages and controls it, and whether there is material supporting that it is held under a borrowed name.

In this case too, one property was registered in the name of one spouse, and the mere claim that family members had paid part of the construction costs or funds was not enough for it to be recognized as jointly owned. Conversely, the other party claimed to be the real owner of an apartment in a third party's name, but the court found the evidence supporting a title trust or the burden of the purchase funds insufficient and excluded it from property division.

In the end, in property division you must prove matters with the following materials along with whose name the property is in.

• Sale contracts and certified copies of the register
• Records of actually paying the down payment, interim payment and balance
• Loan disbursement and repayment records
• Account transfer records and the source of cash
• Tax filing records and income certificates
• For money transactions between family members, loan agreements, interest payment records and repayment records

Custody and child support: the standard is the child's welfare, not which parent wins

Matters concerning children are not decided by which parent won. The court determines the person with parental authority and the custodian by considering who has mainly raised the children, their attachment to each parent, the childcare situation after separation, the financial circumstances, and the children's emotional state and welfare.

In this case, the wife, who as the primary caregiver had built a deep attachment with the children and whom the children also wished to live with, was designated as the sole holder of parental authority and custodian. The husband was ordered to pay child support of KRW 2.4 million per child per month, on the last day of each month, from immediately after the judgment until the children reach adulthood.

The husband was allowed overnight visitation, staying with the children regularly, and non-face-to-face contact by phone, text message, email and social media was also left open. Parental authority, designation of the custodian and visitation are not rewards or penalties for fault. The most important standard is an environment in which the child can grow up stably. The Supreme Court has also stated that one must consider not only the stability a child gains when the marriage is maintained, but also the problem of the child being continuously exposed to severe conflict when a broken marriage is forcibly continued.

Points to remember from this case

This judgment was issued by the Chuncheon District Court Wonju Branch. Regarding a couple whose trust had collapsed over a long period, rather than blaming only one party, the court separately weighed and evaluated the responsibility of both parties and their contribution to building the property.

• If responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage is equal on both sides, the divorce may be granted while the claim for consolation money is dismissed.
• Even if consolation money is dismissed, contribution to housework and childcare can be recognized in the property division ratio. In this case, the property division payment was KRW 300 million, and child support for the two children combined was KRW 4.8 million per month.
• Property division is contested not only on the registered name but on materials showing the flow of funds. If you are considering divorce, it is a good idea to organize your property records first.

The law cannot stop a couple from separating, but it draws a reasonable line to protect life afterward and the welfare of the children. This case shows by what standards legal judgments are made even in the midst of a major event like divorce.

Last reviewed: 2026-10-19 This article provides general legal information; specific advice is given through consultation.