“I spent my own salary?” ... Husband who automatically transferred “500,000 won a month” to his parents—could it be grounds for divorce? [Decision to Leave]

[Financial News] Cases are on the rise in which the practice of “managing assets separately while sharing household expenses”—which has recently become the norm among dual-income couples—is leading to disputes over distorted contributions to wealth accumulation and “financial infidelity.”

According to a recent online community post, a dual-income couple of office workers in their fifth year of marriage, identified as A, agreed to contribute only their living expenses to a joint account, manage their remaining income separately, and save it toward moving to a larger home.
A minimized consumer spending and continued to live frugally to meet their asset-building goal. But it emerged that throughout their marriage, her husband had automatically transferred 500,000 won a month—30 million won in total—to his parents’ account. The husband argued that it was a minimal amount to support his parents in retirement and that he was entitled to spend his personal income as he saw fit. A, however, is objecting, calling it serious financial deception that undermined their agreement to build assets together and destroyed their trust.
Financial planning and tax experts say this case exposes a fatal flaw in the “separate management” approach. When couples share only some household expenses and do not check the flow of the remaining funds, it is easy for one party to take on personal debt or provide support unilaterally, relying on the other party’s opportunity costs and sacrifices—a form of moral hazard. In particular, a monthly cash flow of 500,000 won is enough to create a substantial wealth gap if accumulated through a five-year installment savings plan or a compound-interest investment product.

Legal experts likewise view this kind of opaque use of funds not as a simple matter of “filial piety,” but as undermining contributions to wealth accumulation and potentially giving rise to legal disputes. Even if someone claims the right to freely dispose of their individual income, unilaterally reducing the fund for a home—the household’s central shared goal—and concealing the shortfall while providing support could be considered economic fault contributing to the breakdown of a marriage. The Supreme Court has also held that when one party’s unilateral disposal of money puts the community’s economic foundation at risk, it may constitute a “serious reason that makes it difficult to continue the marriage” under the Civil Act.
A financial industry official advised, “For dual-income households to successfully manage their incomes separately, they must not leave blind spots in spending unaddressed,” adding, “To prevent household financial risks, a governance system must be established that transparently quantifies not only fixed living expenses but also support for both sets of parents, savings targets, and emergency-fund levels under a single financial plan, and conducts regular asset reviews.”
[email protected] Mun Yeong-jin Reporter