beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.16 2016나2019174

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) D, E, and F is modified as follows.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) G died on October 1, 2012 between the parties. G’s inheritors are Defendant D, M and Defendant E and F, who were the husband of the M (Death February 20, 2010) between G and the former wife H, and are children of the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and the latter wife, and the Plaintiff, who were children between G and the former wife, and the former wife. The entire inheritors are “heirs” (hereinafter referred to as “heirs”).

2) The Plaintiff’s share of inheritance for G is 1/5, I, K, L, Defendant B, and C, respectively, 2/15, Defendant DD 6/105, Defendant E, and F, respectively.

3) At the time of the death of G, there was no particular property in relation to the Plaintiff. (B) G owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) at the time of the death of G. G owned each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate at the time of the death.

With respect to the real estate Nos. 3 and 4 of this case, the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage”) by the debtor N (K’s husband) and the maximum debt amount of KRW 325 million was completed as of August 17, 2009, which was received on August 17, 2009 by the Dobong District Court of Seoul Northern District, was the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

2) Meanwhile, around August 2007, G paid KRW 40 million to M, and G assumed KRW 23,523,380 of the hospitalization cost of M from around 2008 to February 2010 (the Defendant has been paid KRW 40 million since the preparatory document dated October 14, 2014 by the first instance court).

Meanwhile, the majority of the hospitalization costs of KRW 23,523,380 was paid by the Plaintiff’s credit card, but it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was the expenses paid by G instead of the Plaintiff for M in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and G, M, the Plaintiff’

3) The successors to the G die.