이혼소송에서의 재산분할과위자료 산정 기준에 관한 연구 ― 서울고등법원 2024. 5. 30. 선고 2023르20051, 20068 판결에 대한 평석을 겸하여 ―

This article presents a critical examination of appellate decisions in a high-profile divorce case and the attitudes of trial courts toward the division of property and alimony in divorce. The article's primary points are as follows: 1. In establishing the division of property, the court should consider the factor of liquidation. It is hard to endorse the expansion of the concept of “contribution to the maintenance and increase of the value of property” to encompass the factor of support. In particular, with regard to the property which belongs to one spouse, it should be considered as substantial matrimonial property only if the other spouse has directly contributed to the acquisition, maintenance, or increase of the value of property at issue. The defendant in the judgment did not provide direct contributions to the acquisition, maintenance, or increase of the value of stocks that belong to plaintiff, and thus the stock should not be subject to property division. 2. Alimony may be awarded when the mental suffering of the divorcing party reaches the level of “actual damages to be compensated.” Furthermore, when determining alimony, the severity of the divorcing party’s psychological distress must be the primary consideration, while factors primarily focused on penalizing the other party, such as the financial status of the other spouse, should be evaluated only as a secondary factor. The award of alimony in the amount of KRW 2 billion to the plaintiff may be regarded as an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, in contravention of the principles of equity. Furthermore, the judgment appears to have considered the plaintiff's economic status and consumption patterns, which is hard to justify, as it virtually constitutes a sanction against the plaintiff.