▲ The photo above is not related to the contents of this article.
In an era of 15 million pet owners, dogs and cats are firmly considered family in every sense, but under current law, they are still treated as "objects."
This is because animals are treated as tangible property under Article 98 of the Civil Act.
In line with changing times, disputes surrounding pets during the "love and war" breakups of couples or married partners have surged.
Today, on July 27, Judge Kim Chul-hwan of Civil Division 12 Single at the Northern Seoul District Court ruled in September of last year that there is no obligation to return a dog handed over by a girlfriend when a couple broke up.
Mr. A gifted a puppy to his girlfriend, whom he promised to marry, in March 2024 while serving in the military.
The issue arose in November of that year, right after Mr. A was discharged from the military.
Mr. A went on a trip to Jeju Island with his girlfriend and the puppy, but was notified of their breakup that evening.
Having a major argument with Mr. A at the time, the girlfriend handed the puppy over to Mr. A, saying, "Because I'm entangled with you, I don't want to see (the puppy) either."
She also demanded 3 million won under the guise of past upbringing expenses.
A few days later, Mr. A, who had taken the dog with him, heard from his father that "your girlfriend contacted us saying she would give 100 million to 200 million won, so please return the dog."
When Mr. A refused, the girlfriend filed a lawsuit, stating, "I said it out of a fit of anger and didn't mean it. It's my dog, so give it back."
The court sided with Mr. A.
The intent was that the girlfriend had transferred ownership of the dog to Mr. A at the time of the breakup.
Judge Kim Chul-hwan judged, "Although the puppy was originally a pet dog that Mr. A bought as a gift for his girlfriend, making it her sole property, synthesizing the evidence, it must be considered that the girlfriend relinquished ownership and gifted it to Mr. A upon breaking up."
The court only examined "to whom ownership should be considered to belong."
Who had formed a stronger emotional attachment with the puppy, or with whom it would be happier, were not matters for legal consideration.
Experts also chime in that it is a situation where the happiness or intentions of pets, which are objects, cannot be objectively quantified.
Attorney Lee Bo-ra of Jeong-o Law Office pointed out, "Since there are no objective criteria for pouring love into something, we have no choice but to examine who spent more money and so on. While child custody cases involve dispatching investigators to make a judgment, no such procedures are taken for animals, which are 'objects'."
She added, "When I take on divorce lawsuits (involving pets), I tell clients, regrettably, neither people nor the court care much, so please do not waste too much emotional energy."
In other similar cases, the court's standards of judgment were similar.
In September of last year, Chief Judge Ahn Jwa-jin of Civil Division 5 Single at the Jeonju District Court dismissed a claim requesting the return of a jointly raised dog filed by someone who broke up with their partner and argued, "It is my dog because I took charge of sending it to a dog kindergarten and purchased necessary items such as feed and toys."
The reason was that they shared the puppy purchase costs, various supplies, and hospital expenses together, making it co-ownership with equal "shares."
Chief Judge Ahn also added, "A claim requesting to prohibit acts interfering with joint possession based on fractional ownership rights might be possible."
While disputes surrounding pets are resolved centered on ownership, there are loud voices that it is actually difficult to evaluate dogs and cats as property.
Attorney Lee Bo-ra analyzed, "In the case of divorce, a list of assets is submitted, but pets have a part where it is very difficult to assign a value to them even though they are objects."
Attorney Shin Hye-sung of Yulwoo Law Firm emphasized, "In the future, the issue of pet ownership may become a major contentious point in divorce lawsuits, but in the end, since they are objects and not people, they have to be handled differently from child custody rights."
Professor Jin Do-wang of the Incheon National University Department of Law also analyzed in a thesis published in 2022 titled "Legal Status of Pets upon Divorce and Criteria for Determining Attribution," stating, "Even if we accept the proposition that 'animals are not objects,' it does not mean they are equated with humans," and "The attribution of pets has no choice but to be resolved from the perspective of property division."
Accordingly, the Ministry of Justice has fully embarked on discussions to revise current civil law regulations that treat animals as objects.
According to the Ministry of Justice, as a result of conducting a public opinion poll on the "de-objectification of animals" targeting 1,000 citizens aged 18 and older nationwide, 87.8% of respondents answered that animals under civil law should be classified and separated from objects.
Previously, in 2021, the Ministry of Justice had also announced a legislative notice for a civil law amendment excluding animals from the category of objects, but it was scrapped due to the expiration of the National Assembly's term without proper deliberation.
The Ministry of Justice is pushing to overhaul related provisions, including holding a legislative issue debate on the "de-objectification of animals" on the 16th of this month.
(Photo provided by Rural Development Administration, Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.