beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall receive KRW 6,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, constitute each real estate indicated in the attached Table from the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 150,000 on December 13, 201 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") with Eul and paid Eul KRW 114,00,000 out of the purchase price four times from December 13, 201 to April 28, 2013, and Eul died on May 3, 2016, and his heir had the defendants (1/6 each share of inheritance).
According to the above facts, the Defendants, who jointly inherited B’s property, are obligated to complete the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for one-six shares of each of the instant real property to the Plaintiff at the same time having received payment from the Plaintiff according to their respective shares of inheritance (i.e., KRW 150,000,000 - KRW 1114,00,000).
The defendants asserts that the judgment of the defendants on the plaintiff's assertion is subject to a qualified acceptance trial by the competent court on the deceased B's inherited property, so the defendants claim that they bear the duty of payment to the plaintiff within the scope of inherited property
However, according to the above evidence, the facts that the Defendants received a qualified acceptance trial on the deceased B’s inherited property as the Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch 2016Ra101 are recognized.
However, the qualified acceptance system separates the inherited property and proprietary property of the inheritor who has made a qualified acceptance from the inheritor to the extent of the inherited property, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendants are in danger of repaying the same as the Defendant’s inherent property in this case.
Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit, and it is not clearly stated in the text of the judgment that they shall be liable for performance within the scope of inherited property.
The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified.