After 20 Years of Marriage, a Property Division Ruling Secures a 60% Contribution Share and Protects the Family Home
Case Type : Defence Against Post-Divorce Property Division Claim
Outcome : Client's Contribution Recognised at 60% · Current (Depreciated) Property Value Applied
Handled by : Law Firm Jinheon
Case at a Glance
After twenty years of marriage and a consensual divorce, our client was raising two children alone when the former spouse filed a claim for division of the matrimonial property — specifically, the apartment registered in our client's name where the client and children were living. The former spouse demanded half the apartment's value based on the price at the time of divorce, claiming a 50% contribution. Law Firm Jinheon presented a comprehensive picture of our client's real financial contribution to the property, the realities of solo parenting on a minimal maintenance payment, and the fall in the apartment's value since the divorce — securing a 60% contribution finding and a decision based on the current, lower property value.
1. Why the Client Came to Law Firm Jinheon
Our client had ended a twenty-year marriage through consensual divorce. During the divorce process, the former spouse had pressured our client into agreeing to a child maintenance payment of just 1 million KRW per month for two children — an amount our client felt was far below what was reasonable, but had felt unable to refuse at the time. The parties had not reached any agreement on property division, and the divorce was finalised leaving that matter unresolved.
After the divorce, our client continued living in the apartment — registered in the client's name — with the two children, effectively raising them alone. Then the former spouse filed a claim for property division. The former spouse asserted a 50% contribution to the apartment and demanded half of the apartment's value as it stood at the time of the consensual divorce — a figure that no longer reflected reality, as the property's value had fallen considerably since then.
Our client came to Law Firm Jinheon explaining that the apartment had dropped in value since the divorce, that their own contribution to acquiring and maintaining the property had been substantially greater than the former spouse's, and that they were raising two children on a maintenance payment that was far too low to be adequate.
2. Law Firm Jinheon's Legal Strategy
This case turned on two distinct issues. The first was the proportion of contribution to be attributed to each party. The second was the point in time at which the apartment's value should be assessed for the purpose of calculating the division.
Under established Korean case law, the value of assets subject to property division is assessed as of the date of the consensual divorce. The former spouse relied on this principle, using the higher value at the time of divorce as the basis for the claim. But allowing the current reality — a substantially lower property value — to go unaddressed was not an option.
Law Firm Jinheon developed a strategy around three lines of argument.
First, we established our client's actual contribution to the property in concrete detail. We compiled and presented to the court a comprehensive account of our client's economic activity throughout the marriage, the source of the funds used to purchase the apartment, the history of mortgage repayments, and the ongoing costs of maintaining the property. Against that, we set out the evidence showing that the former spouse had made no meaningful contribution to the acquisition or upkeep of the apartment.
Second, we put the full reality of our client's situation squarely before the court. The apartment was the only home our client and the two children had. Our client had experienced a significant career interruption due to childcare responsibilities over many years, was receiving a monthly maintenance payment of just 1 million KRW — wholly inadequate for raising two children — and would be solely responsible for the children's upbringing until they reached adulthood. We ensured the court understood that this was not simply an exercise in arithmetic, but a decision with direct consequences for the lives of three people.
Third, we argued that the post-divorce fall in the apartment's value should be reflected in the assessment. While the default position under case law is to use the value at the time of divorce, we submitted detailed market data demonstrating the concrete decline in the apartment's value since then and constructed the legal argument for why the current value should apply in the circumstances of this case.
3. The Outcome — 60% Contribution Recognised, Depreciated Value Applied
The court accepted a significant portion of Law Firm Jinheon's submissions.
On contribution, the court fixed our client's share at 60% — rejecting the former spouse's claim of an equal 50/50 split and formally recognising that our client's contribution had been the greater of the two.
On valuation, the court based its calculation on the current, lower market value of the apartment rather than the higher figure at the time of divorce. This was a departure from the standard approach under case law, and it reflected the court's acceptance that our client's specific circumstances warranted a different outcome.
The combined effect of these two findings significantly reduced the amount our client was required to pay compared to what the former spouse had originally demanded — and our client was able to keep the home where the family had built their life together.
4. Why This Case Matters — And Why Choose Law Firm Jinheon
This was never simply a matter of dividing up assets. It was a case about twenty years of marriage, a long career interruption due to childcare, an inadequate maintenance payment, and the only home two children had ever known. All of that needed to reach the court — and reach it in a way that was persuasive.
Two aspects of the outcome stand out. First, a 60% contribution was recognised despite a substantial period out of the workforce due to childcare — an outcome that is far from automatic and required careful, evidence-based argument. Second, the post-divorce fall in the property's value was accepted as the basis for assessment — a result that runs against the default position under Korean case law and was only achieved by presenting the court with a compelling account of why the standard approach should not apply here.
Property division proceedings are not won on numbers alone. They are won by presenting the full reality of a client's life to the court with clarity and conviction, and by finding the legal arguments that bridge the gap between established doctrine and a client's actual situation. That is what Law Firm Jinheon does.
After 20 Years of Marriage, a Property Division Ruling Secures a 60% Contribution Share and Protects the Family Home
Case Type : Defence Against Post-Divorce Property Division Claim Outcome : Client's Contribution Recognised at 60% · Current (Depreciated) Property Value Applied Handled by : Law Firm Jinheon
Case at a Glance
After twenty years of marriage and a consensual divorce, our client was raising two children alone when the former spouse filed a claim for division of the matrimonial property — specifically, the apartment registered in our client's name where the client and children were living. The former spouse demanded half the apartment's value based on the price at the time of divorce, claiming a 50% contribution. Law Firm Jinheon presented a comprehensive picture of our client's real financial contribution to the property, the realities of solo parenting on a minimal maintenance payment, and the fall in the apartment's value since the divorce — securing a 60% contribution finding and a decision based on the current, lower property value.
1. Why the Client Came to Law Firm Jinheon
Our client had ended a twenty-year marriage through consensual divorce. During the divorce process, the former spouse had pressured our client into agreeing to a child maintenance payment of just 1 million KRW per month for two children — an amount our client felt was far below what was reasonable, but had felt unable to refuse at the time. The parties had not reached any agreement on property division, and the divorce was finalised leaving that matter unresolved.
After the divorce, our client continued living in the apartment — registered in the client's name — with the two children, effectively raising them alone. Then the former spouse filed a claim for property division. The former spouse asserted a 50% contribution to the apartment and demanded half of the apartment's value as it stood at the time of the consensual divorce — a figure that no longer reflected reality, as the property's value had fallen considerably since then.
Our client came to Law Firm Jinheon explaining that the apartment had dropped in value since the divorce, that their own contribution to acquiring and maintaining the property had been substantially greater than the former spouse's, and that they were raising two children on a maintenance payment that was far too low to be adequate.
2. Law Firm Jinheon's Legal Strategy
This case turned on two distinct issues. The first was the proportion of contribution to be attributed to each party. The second was the point in time at which the apartment's value should be assessed for the purpose of calculating the division.
Under established Korean case law, the value of assets subject to property division is assessed as of the date of the consensual divorce. The former spouse relied on this principle, using the higher value at the time of divorce as the basis for the claim. But allowing the current reality — a substantially lower property value — to go unaddressed was not an option.
Law Firm Jinheon developed a strategy around three lines of argument.
First, we established our client's actual contribution to the property in concrete detail. We compiled and presented to the court a comprehensive account of our client's economic activity throughout the marriage, the source of the funds used to purchase the apartment, the history of mortgage repayments, and the ongoing costs of maintaining the property. Against that, we set out the evidence showing that the former spouse had made no meaningful contribution to the acquisition or upkeep of the apartment.
Second, we put the full reality of our client's situation squarely before the court. The apartment was the only home our client and the two children had. Our client had experienced a significant career interruption due to childcare responsibilities over many years, was receiving a monthly maintenance payment of just 1 million KRW — wholly inadequate for raising two children — and would be solely responsible for the children's upbringing until they reached adulthood. We ensured the court understood that this was not simply an exercise in arithmetic, but a decision with direct consequences for the lives of three people.
Third, we argued that the post-divorce fall in the apartment's value should be reflected in the assessment. While the default position under case law is to use the value at the time of divorce, we submitted detailed market data demonstrating the concrete decline in the apartment's value since then and constructed the legal argument for why the current value should apply in the circumstances of this case.
3. The Outcome — 60% Contribution Recognised, Depreciated Value Applied
The court accepted a significant portion of Law Firm Jinheon's submissions.
On contribution, the court fixed our client's share at 60% — rejecting the former spouse's claim of an equal 50/50 split and formally recognising that our client's contribution had been the greater of the two.
On valuation, the court based its calculation on the current, lower market value of the apartment rather than the higher figure at the time of divorce. This was a departure from the standard approach under case law, and it reflected the court's acceptance that our client's specific circumstances warranted a different outcome.
The combined effect of these two findings significantly reduced the amount our client was required to pay compared to what the former spouse had originally demanded — and our client was able to keep the home where the family had built their life together.
4. Why This Case Matters — And Why Choose Law Firm Jinheon
This was never simply a matter of dividing up assets. It was a case about twenty years of marriage, a long career interruption due to childcare, an inadequate maintenance payment, and the only home two children had ever known. All of that needed to reach the court — and reach it in a way that was persuasive.
Two aspects of the outcome stand out. First, a 60% contribution was recognised despite a substantial period out of the workforce due to childcare — an outcome that is far from automatic and required careful, evidence-based argument. Second, the post-divorce fall in the property's value was accepted as the basis for assessment — a result that runs against the default position under Korean case law and was only achieved by presenting the court with a compelling account of why the standard approach should not apply here.
Property division proceedings are not won on numbers alone. They are won by presenting the full reality of a client's life to the court with clarity and conviction, and by finding the legal arguments that bridge the gap between established doctrine and a client's actual situation. That is what Law Firm Jinheon does.