logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.12.18 2013가합5670
채권자대위 청구의 소
Text

1. All of the principal lawsuit of this case and the counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The parties’ relevant net C (the deceased on December 7, 2008 and the deceased on December 7, 2008, hereinafter “the deceased”) had 3 South and North Korean women (the deceased on July 23, 1967, son E) between her wife D, and the Plaintiff is 3 South and North Korea, the Defendant is the Defendant, and F is the remainder of Korea.

B. After the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff and F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance shares among the real estate (each real estate listed in the attached list) owned by the deceased. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, F, etc. on November 13, 2009 against the Plaintiff, F, etc. for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the said real estate (U.S. District Court Decision 2009Gahap44755, Jun. 1, 2010). The Plaintiff and F against the Defendant on May 1, 2010, against the Defendant, the real estate under the name of the Defendant at the time of the death of the deceased constituted inherited property under a title trust with the Defendant, and sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to each inheritance, and claimed that the Defendant consumed the money deposited in the deposit account of the deceased and claimed that the real estate was returned according to the inheritance shares deposited in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and F, even if having claimed the return of the inherited property under the name of the deceased.

(U) On February 10, 2012, in the case No. 2009Gahap4475, a notarial deed asserted by the Defendant was made in the absence of two witnesses, and was sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant (the Plaintiff of the instant case) on the ground that it violates the method of will as stipulated in Article 1068 of the Civil Act and becomes null and void. 4) and the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site Board.

arrow