logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.16 2018나2014692
유류분반환 청구의 소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant F is modified as follows.

Defendant F shall be the plaintiffs, And Dong-si.

Reasons

1. The key issue of the instant appellate trial (1) was: (a) Defendant F agreed upon the return of originals between the parties; and (b) cancelled the right to collateral security (Nandong-si 595 square meters and O 625 square meters) on which the return of value was based after the first instance judgment; and (c) accordingly, Defendant F shall be sentenced to the return of originals on the basis of the date of closing argument at the trial court

(2) The Plaintiffs asserted that there is no agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendant F on the return of the original property in force between the Plaintiffs and Defendant F, and that if the return of the original property is declared as to N 595 square meters and O 625 square meters at the time when the right to collateral security was cancelled, Defendant F may re-establish a mortgage. It is questionable whether the said two parcels were jointly owned due to the division of the original property and the cooperation between the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the jointly owned property, and Defendant F, as such, the same value return judgment as the judgment of the first instance is necessary.

In cases where the return of the original source is declared, each of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the return of each share of 460,946,47,850 square meters among the 595 square meters in Ansan-si N-si N-si 595 square meters, and 28,47,850 square meters among the 625 square meters in Ansan-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si Y-si, and each of the 7,096,200 square meters (21,28,600 square meters ± 3)

(3) Although the requirements to declare the original return have been proven as of the date of closing argument at the fact-finding court, whether there is a legal basis to declare the return of value, not the original return, solely on the basis of the likelihood and possibility as alleged by the Plaintiffs, is the issues of the instant appellate

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and the pleading materials submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment

The reasons for this Court with respect to this case are as follows.

arrow