유류분반환청구
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding the judgment of the court of first instance under Paragraph (3) as to the defendant's argument, the court of first instance shall dismiss the 4, 11 to 6, and 5, among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, as the following Paragraph (2), and the 6, 6, 600 (f) as the "ma")." Thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, after the death of C, each of the instant lands was purchased from E rather than donated by the decedent, since, after the death of C, only the registration title was trusted to the decedent in preparation for the business failure of E. Therefore, each of the instant lands cannot be included in the amount of property, which is the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance, and that the Defendant purchased each of the instant real estate from E rather than donated by the decedent.
On the other hand, real estate registration is presumed to have been completed based on legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists in formality, and a person who asserts that he/she had registered under the name of another person in trust is liable to prove the fact of title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84479, Oct. 29, 2015). The fact that the decedent completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant land on Nov. 4, 2004 due to inheritance by consultation and division as of Apr. 3, 2004. The fact that the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate was completed under the name of the defendant on June 19, 2009 under the name of the defendant on June 16, 2009 is as seen earlier.
Therefore, it is presumed that the decedent inherited each of the instant land by the decedent, and that the Defendant donated each of the instant real estate from the decedent, and that the testimony and evidence No. 5-1, No. 5-2 by the witness E of the first instance trial or the Defendant possessed the aforementioned facts.