아파트 매입대금
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 21, 1984, the Plaintiff reported marriage with the deceased C, but reported divorce on February 22, 2013.
B. On December 20, 199, the network C purchased D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, 199 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name on January 7, 200.
(c)
The deceased on July 14, 2019 and succeeded to the deceased C, the Defendant, F, and G, who are their children. The above inheritors completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on September 20, 2019 due to inheritance by division of consultation on July 14, 2019 (Defendant 6/10 shares, F2/10 shares, G2/10 shares, and G2/10 shares). [Grounds for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C purchased the instant real estate in KRW 100 million, and as at the time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million out of the purchase price, the Plaintiff has the right to 40% of the instant real estate.
At present, the market price of the instant real estate is KRW 250 million. The Plaintiff’s share in the instant real estate is KRW 100 million (=250 million x 40%). The Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s share, and the Defendant is demanding the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 80 million excluding F’s share (2/10).
B. As to whether the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million out of the purchase price at the time of the purchase of the instant real estate, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to accept the judgment net C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
B. As the Plaintiff asserted, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million out of the purchase price.
Even if such fact alone does not mean that the Plaintiff’s right to share 4/10 of the instant real estate is a person entitled to share 4/10 of the instant real estate, so the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that the Plaintiff is a right holder of share 4/10 of the instant real estate is without merit (a person who has been divorced by agreement may file a claim for the