When Love Ends, Who Gets the Dog?

As companion animals increasingly become family members, disputes over pet ownership are also on the rise. A recent Korean court decision addressed an important question: Who owns a pet when a de facto marriage couple breaks up?(Daejeon Court Cheonan Branch 2025Gadan170)

Under Korean law, a de facto marriage is a relationship in which a couple lives together as spouses and intends to be married but has not formally registered their marriage. Although it is not legally registered, many legal principles applicable to married couples, including claims for damages, property division, and the rules governing marital property, may also apply to de facto spouses.

In this case, the parties had lived together for several years and maintained a de facto marriage. The defendant had adopted the dog and paid the entire adoption fee before the de facto marriage was established. During their relationship, however, the plaintiff registered the dog under his/her own name pursuant to the Animal Protection Act. After the relationship ended, the defendant continued to care for the dog, and the plaintiff later filed a lawsuit seeking its return.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. It held that the dog constituted the defendant’s separate property(peculiar property), meaning property acquired before marriage or inherited individually and owned exclusively by one spouse. The court explained that the rules governing separate property under the Korean Civil Act apply by analogy to de facto marriages.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasized four key factors. First, the defendant had paid the entire adoption fee and there was insufficient evidence that the parties had already established a de facto marriage when the dog was acquired. Second, although the parties jointly cared for the dog during their relationship, there was no evidence that they had agreed to transfer ownership or make the dog jointly owned. Third, animal registration under the Animal Protection Act is merely an administrative measure intended to protect animals and prevent loss or abandonment, and it does not determine or transfer ownership rights. Finally, after the de facto marriage ended, the defendant exclusively possessed and cared for the dog, while the plaintiff did not assert any ownership rights until learning of the defendant’s remarriage more than a year later.

The decision serves as a reminder that, under Korean law, companion animals are still treated as property, and ownership is determined by evidence of acquisition and transfer rather than by registration records.