beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. From May 12, 2017 to Plaintiff A, KRW 32,117,023 for each of the 32,17,023 and its related costs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Between the deceased E (FF, hereinafter “the deceased”) and his wife G, G was deceased on March 7, 2010; H was deceased on June 30, 2012; and the Deceased on August 24, 2013; and I (J) decided on November 27, 2015 (Seoul Family Court Decision 2014Mo30181) and deemed that the termination of the missing period was deceased on February 28, 1975.
B. Plaintiff A is the husband of the deceased H, and Plaintiff B and C are children between Plaintiff A and the deceased H, due to the death of Plaintiff A and the deceased of the deceased. The inheritance shares of Plaintiff A are 3/7, Plaintiff B and C are 2/7, respectively.
C. The Deceased owned each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet before his death (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and was residing in the said real estate, but the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant was completed on July 8, 2013 as the receipt of the instant real estate by the Seoul Central District Court No. 174603, Jul. 8, 2013 (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”).
Meanwhile, the deceased had a deposit claim against a national bank (hereinafter “the instant deposit claim”), but was withdrawn from the said account as KRW 9 million on July 8, 2013, the deceased’s death, and KRW 12,000,000 on July 24, 2013, and KRW 12,000,000 on July 25, 2013. After the deceased’s death, KRW 20,90,000 on August 26, 2013 and KRW 21,042,00 on August 142, 2013 were withdrawn.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 8, 23 to 26, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims
A. (1) In the first place, the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant real estate was based on a sales contract as of July 8, 2013 between the deceased and the Defendant, and the Defendant’s refusal or delay of payment of KRW 160,000,000 for the purchase price. As such, the Defendant rescinded the said sales contract through delivery of the preparatory document as of October 12, 2015.
Therefore, the defendant's restoration to the original state against the plaintiffs, who are the substitute inheritor of the deceased.