The story of a man whose 20 million won, saved frugally over three years to buy a home, went to his sister-in-law's wedding expenses without his knowledge has drawn wide attention after it was posted on an online community. According to a News1 report, the author, Mr. A, discovered while sorting out the couple's joint account that 10 million won had been transferred to his wife's younger sister last autumn and another 10 million won this spring. His wife said she had not told him because "I thought you would object if I told you."
Mr. A and his wife work at a mobile phone store and a supermarket, and their combined income is less than 5 million won a month; they are raising two children and live in a jeonse (lump-sum deposit) rental. Mr. A said he had saved the money by bringing a packed lunch to work and even quitting smoking. His wife protested that she had practically raised her younger sister since childhood and that, as an older sister, she ought to be able to help that much. The two are said to have stopped speaking to each other. Some netizens even reacted by asking, "Isn't this grounds for divorce?"
The wish to help one's family is understandable. However, the law has clear standards on how it views money a married couple has saved together and what it means when that money is spent without consultation.
1. Whose Money Is a Married Couple's Money?
A. Title is the rule, and co-ownership is presumed when unclear
Korean civil law adopts the system of separate marital property. Article 830(1) of the Civil Act treats property that one spouse owned before marriage and property acquired in his or her own name during marriage as that spouse's separate property, and paragraph (2) of the same Article presumes that property whose ownership is unclear is co-owned by the spouses. Bank deposits are usually opened in one person's name, so even if a couple calls it a "joint account," legally it usually starts out as a deposit belonging to the account holder.
B. But title does not matter at divorce
Title is not everything. Division of property at divorce is a system for settling the property the spouses built up through their cooperation, regardless of whose name it is in. Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act provides that the family court shall determine the amount and method of division taking into account the amount of property built up through the cooperation of both parties and other circumstances. A home-purchase savings account that a dual-income couple built up together is highly likely to be assessed as joint marital property, whether it is in the wife's name or the husband's.
2. What Is the Legal Effect of Money Sent Without Consultation?
A. It is hard to regard as ordinary household affairs
Article 827(1) of the Civil Act provides that spouses have the power to represent each other in ordinary household affairs. This means that expenses normally needed for family life, such as groceries, utility bills and children's academy fees, may be decided by one spouse alone. However, it is hard to regard sending 20 million won, four times the couple's monthly income, to a sister-in-law out of money saved for the specific purpose of buying a home as an ordinary household affair.
B. Can he ask the sister-in-law to return it?
Realistically, it is not easy. If the account is in the wife's name, the wife gave a deposit in her own name to her sister, so it is difficult for the husband to find grounds to demand its return directly from his sister-in-law. If the account is in the husband's name and the wife made the transfers without authority, the situation may be different, but even then it must be examined whether the wife had usually managed that account and whether there are circumstances suggesting that he tacitly allowed the transfers. On the other hand, if the wife "lent" the money rather than "gave" it, she has a claim for its return, so the couple could also consider working out a repayment plan with the sister together.
3. Can It Be Grounds for Divorce?
A. The Supreme Court's judgment on unilateral disposal of joint property
The Supreme Court recently issued a meaningful judgment on whether a spouse's unilateral disposal of property can fall under "other serious grounds making it difficult to continue the marriage" in Article 840(vi) of the Civil Act, which sets out the grounds for divorce. It was a case in which a husband, despite his wife's objection, gave most of the property the couple had built together over their lifetime to their eldest son.
Supreme Court Decision 2025Meu10730, September 4, 2025
If a spouse, without just cause and without consultation with or consent from the other spouse, unilaterally disposes of a major part of the property built up jointly, thereby reducing the economic foundation of the family community to an empty shell or endangering it, and as a result the trust between the spouses is damaged beyond recovery, this may constitute "other serious grounds making it difficult to continue the marriage."
In this judgment, the Supreme Court did not rely on the fact that the property was in the husband's sole name. The point is that if the property was built up by the couple together, even the titleholder may not dispose of it at will.
B. It does not apply directly to this story
However, that case involved the disposal of most of the couple's entire property, in particular nearly all of their housing and means of livelihood, and the couple had been separated for almost three years. The 20 million won in this story is by no means a small amount for this couple, but it is hard to conclude that a single transfer of that kind immediately constitutes grounds for divorce. The court looks at a range of circumstances together, including whether there is a will to continue the marriage, who is responsible for the breakdown, the length of the marriage and whether there are children. In the end, whether the couple can restore trust after this incident will decide the outcome.
4. What Can Be Done Now
A. Organize the records before the emotions
The starting point is to organize the transfer dates and amounts, the name on the account, and deposit records showing how much each spouse has put into that account. These materials will be needed whether the couple reconciles or goes through legal proceedings. It is also advisable to make clear at this stage whether the wife gave the money to her sister or lent it.
B. Retaliation is a mistake
If, in anger, one spouse secretly withdraws money from an account in the other's name or disposes of other joint property in response, he or she may instead be judged to be the one who broke the trust. The logic of the Supreme Court judgment above applies equally to husbands and wives. Protesting to the in-laws while letting emotions take the lead will only escalate the conflict.
C. If you are considering divorce, understand how division of property works
In a judicial divorce, the property subject to division is in principle determined based on the property remaining around the time the fact-finding court closes its hearings. Money that has already gone to the sister-in-law is not itself included in the property to be divided, but the fact that one spouse arbitrarily reduced joint property may be taken into account as "other circumstances" under Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act. Since the right to claim division of property is extinguished two years after the date of divorce (Article 839-2(3) of the Civil Act), one should avoid rushing into a divorce by agreement while putting off settling the property.
5. Closing Thoughts
This story struck a chord with many people probably less because of the amount of money than because of the words "without consultation." It is in the same vein that the Supreme Court regards a married couple as both a community of affection and an economic community. As more couples manage their money in their own separate names, setting a rule in advance that spending above a certain amount, or support for either side's family, will be discussed beforehand is the most realistic way to prevent disputes. The law intervenes only after a conflict erupts, but the principles between spouses can be set before that.
(Shin Dong-woo, Managing Partner, DAEON Law Firm)
Photo: Artsy Crafty, CC0 Public Domain (StockSnap, Openverse)
2026. 10. 20. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail