서울고등법원 2024.5.30. 선고 2023르20051 판결 검토 고의적 유책행위에 대한 위자료 산정과 SK 주식에 관한 재산분할 여부

In late May 2024, a significant divorce ruling was issued. The Seoul High Court dismissed the plaintiff's divorce claim but upheld the defendant's claim, ordering the plaintiff to pay 20 billion KRW in damages and 1.38 trillion KRW in property division to the defendant in cash. The ruling drew attention due to the unprecedented amounts involved, with the damages set at 20 billion KRW, far exceeding the customary cap of 1 billion KRW, and the property division amounting to 1.38 trillion KRW. Since the Constitutional Court's decision in 2015 declaring the adultery law unconstitutional, there has been a viewpoint that mental damage compensation for the culpable spouse's infidelity should include punitive aspects. However, over the past decade, the awarded amounts for such damages have actually decreased when compared to other illegal acts adjusted for inflation. The significance of this ruling lies in the court recognizing the plaintiff's prolonged and intentional infidelity with a third party even before the dissolution of the marriage as a serious breach of the sanctity and monogamous nature of marriage, which is specially protected by the constitution, thereby justifying a substantial compensatory amount. In the appellate trial, newly emerged evidence included six promissory notes (worth 30 billion KRW) and an agreement on SK Group's management rights. A key issue was whether to consider the 30 billion KRW received from the Roh Tae-woo side to the plaintiff's father as joint property of the plaintiff and defendant. This 30 billion KRW is also connected to the plaintiff's claim of 2.8 billion KRW as special property, and whether SK stocks acquired during the marriage with these funds should be considered the plaintiff's special property. The plaintiff and defendant received substantial financial support from the defendant's parents early in their marriage, forming the basis of their joint property. The acquisition of Korea Telecom stocks in the plaintiff's name, which later became SK stocks, also stemmed from a transfer from the plaintiff's father's account, lacking specificity as special property and thus being considered joint property. The Weiss v. Weiss ruling decided that even if gifted stock shares are an exception to equitable distribution, any increase in value during the marriage is subject to division. The Painter v. Painter ruling reflects the current societal values that view all property acquired during the marriage as a product of the marital partnership. In cases of significant inheritance, the ruling suggests that for special property to be recognized, it must be distinctly separated and managed. Ultimately, properties acquired during the marriage should be seen as contributions from both spouses' social and domestic efforts, and any difference in contributions should be adjusted within a 10% margin.