logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.08.18 2016가단117683
유류분반환청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on March 4, 2014, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are the deceased’s children. 2) On August 1, 1998, the deceased donated to the Plaintiff a F 4,780 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). On August 1, 1998, the Daejeon District Court’s Dosan Branch Office of the Daejeon District Court completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the instant donation”).

B. On February 14, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on February 14, 2004 against the Defendant regarding the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on January 20, 2004, 169 square meters prior to H, 636 square meters prior to J, 731 square meters prior to KJ, and 625 square meters. (2) The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the Defendant received a donation of 10,116 square meters of the forest land L/C from the deceased even after the deceased’s death.

3) On April 15, 2016, the instant lawsuit concluded conciliation between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant with the content that the Defendant implements the procedures for ownership transfer registration based on the return of each share of 1/14 of the subject matter to the Plaintiffs on April 15, 2016.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiffs infringed upon the Plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance due to the instant donation by the Deceased, the Defendant, as a return of legal reserve of inheritance, had the obligation to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership as to each of the instant land (=1/7 of the Plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance x 1/2), even if the short-term extinctive prescription period had run.

However, it is re-appealed to the effect that the progress was suspended by the provisional disposition of the plaintiffs.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the return of legal reserve has expired due to the completion of prescription.

3. Determination

A. Civil Act.

arrow