logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.08.20 2018나2055587
부당이득금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The 5th to 12th of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

(1) The Defendant: (a) withdrawn KRW 130 million from a deposit withdrawn on August 27, 2014; and (b) withdrawn KRW 130,229,726 from a limited partnership on August 27, 2014 to H; and (c) transfers KRW 50,000 to H; and (d) deposit the remainder in the account under the name of the Deceased; (b) deposited KRW 30,229,726 from the account under the name of the Deceased; and (c) deposited KRW 30,000 in the account under the name of the Deceased with KRW 30,000 in face value with KRW 30,000; and (d) the check was issued with KRW 30,000 in face value with KRW 30,000 from the deposit withdrawn on August 27, 2014 with KRW 80,229,70,000 among the fact that the Defendant was at issue for payment; or (d) the issuance of financial transaction information by each court.

First, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was donated KRW 50 million out of the deposit withdrawal from August 27, 2014 by the deceased.

The defendant asserts that the above money should not be included in the donated property because he received the above KRW 50 million in return for supporting the deceased for 20 years.

However, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the above KRW 50 million was a donation excluded from the special benefits of co-inheritors included in the underlying property in calculating the legal reserve of inheritance. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Even if there is a person who specially supported the inheritee by means of living together for a considerable period of time, etc. among co-inheritors, it is impossible to claim his/her contributory portion in a lawsuit seeking the return of legal reserve of inheritance, unless the contributory portion has been determined through consultation

arrow