(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.06.20 2017가단8959

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.06.20 2017가단8959

소유권이전등기말소등기등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C and the defendant are the father of the father of the father of the father of the child.

B. C and D: (a) borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff, but failed to repay it; (b) on January 29, 2013, written a letter to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 35 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) totaling KRW 30 million and the interest rate of KRW 5 million up to December 2012 (hereinafter “instant letter”) up to April 30, 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant agreements”).

C. C and D did not repay the instant loan even after written the instant letter, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against C, etc. on June 27, 2014 with the Busan District Court 2014Guj9237, and C did not file an objection, and the payment order became final and conclusive on July 25, 2014.

The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 12, 2013 with respect to G apartment Nos. 1111, 602 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Busan Seo-gu E and F, Busan (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

At the time, the purchase and sale price of the apartment of this case is KRW 182 million, and on April 23, 2013, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor as the defendant was completed on April 23, 2013.

E. The defendant is H students.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the defendant's age and occupation, etc., the plaintiff did not have a condition for the defendant to purchase the apartment of this case. In light of the situation of purchasing the apartment of this case at the time when the repayment period for the loan of this case arrives, the plaintiff appears to have purchased the apartment of this case in the name of the defendant for the purpose of evading the loan of this case. Since the defendant received and used the apartment of this case as collateral, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan of this case and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.12.21 2018가합52056

-광주고등법원 2019.07.24 2019나20282

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.11.16 2016가단7504

-서울서부지방법원 2016.08.16 2016가단1741

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018나2702