beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.04.27 2016가단223514

상속회복청구의 소

Text

1. The Defendants each of KRW 10,758,096 to Plaintiff A, KRW 7,172,064 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 7,172,064 to Plaintiff C, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) Nonparty F (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) On November 30, 2013, the deceased died on November 30, 2013, his husband G died on November 20, 2003. 2) The deceased’s her her son H, Defendant D, Defendant E, and son gave his her son I, but he died on December 30, 2006, when I became more than the deceased, and her son K, her son, and L as her son’s son.

3) On January 24, 2014, two months after the deceased’s death, H died as D’s inheritor, and there was Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and C as H’s husband’s heir. B. Around February 2, 2009, the deceased was hospitalized in a convalescent hospital with dementia judgment issued by the hospital.

2) From July 23, 2004, the Deceased is the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M apartment Nho (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(3) On October 6, 2013, Defendant D, as an agent of the Deceased, concluded a sales contract to sell the instant apartment to theO for KRW 410 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 27, 2013. The Defendants received KRW 41 million from theO as the sales price of the instant apartment on October 19, 2013, the intermediate payment of KRW 19 million on November 6, 2013, and the remainder of KRW 350 million on November 27, 2013, including the sum of KRW 410 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the defendants' defense of violation of exclusive jurisdiction, the defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' claim for recovery of inheritance with the exception of inheritance expenses among the apartment sale proceeds of this case is not the successor who infringed the deceased H or the plaintiffs' share of inheritance, and that this case has exclusive jurisdiction over the family court as a matter of division of inherited property.

On the other hand, even though there is no legitimate right of inheritance as the other party of the right of inheritance recovery, it is true that there is an appearance relianceing on the property inheritor, or that the heir occupies all or part of the inherited property.