beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are co-inheritors of the network C as a wholesaler.
B. On February 4, 2010, the network C delegated the entirety of the trading authority of the land and its ground buildings owned by it (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with E on February 4, 2010.
C. However, the net C died on February 11, 2010, prior to the payment date of the remainder under the above sales contract. D.
With respect to the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 2, 2010.
E. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant sold the instant real estate and received KRW 300 million in the purchase price, and accordingly, rejected payment of KRW 44,444,44 of the amount corresponding to his share of inheritance among the amount of KRW 200,000,000, which was deducted from the total amount of KRW 100,000 at the time of the
However, as a result of the investigation, on August 30, 2010, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspicion on the grounds that there is no evidence to regard the purchase price as KRW 300 million.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, and Eul evidence 9
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for an amount equivalent to 44,44,444 won of the plaintiff's inheritance shares (2/9) embezzled out of the above amount since the right to collateral security was established on the real estate of this case at the time of sale on the premise that the defendant had received payment of KRW 300 million with the purchase price after forging the power of delegation in the name of the deceased and selling the real estate of this case to E.
(Plaintiffs shall seek only KRW 44,44,00,00, for the convenience of calculation). (b)
Therefore, as to whether the Defendant received KRW 300 million as the purchase price of the instant real estate, it is not sufficient to recognize the same only with the descriptions of health expenses, Gap evidence 3, and Gap evidence 7-1.