(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가합577387

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가합577387

손해배상(기)

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 completed the marriage report on February 27, 1997, and reported the divorce on March 3, 2015, and their children C (D).

B. On November 2014, the Plaintiff’s 110 Dong-dong 406 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) against the Defendant around November 201, 2014, decided that the agreement would be reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

(iii) the statement of agreement to donate the agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the statement of agreement”) is referred to as “the statement of agreement implementation.”

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to transfer without compensation to the Defendant the instant apartment in the name of the Plaintiff at least three days prior to the final judgment of the court in the process of divorce. 2) On March 3, 2015, upon filing a report of divorce, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to jointly designate C’s person with parental authority as the Defendant and jointly with the Defendant to designate the custodian and the Defendant, and C agreed to pay the child support to the Defendant up to the age of majority.

In addition, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to waive all the claims for division of property or consolation money after the same day.

C. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of ownership with respect to the instant apartment on the ground of the division of property on March 4, 2015.

C’s change of residence was admitted to a university on March 2016, and was residing with the Defendant until September 2016, and became self-employed in the vicinity of the university.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, on the condition that the Defendant is responsible for all backs of the instant apartment to C’s college career and marriage, the Plaintiff donated the instant apartment to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant has continuously abused C in emotionally without implementing it, and not only school expenses.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.03.12 2014나42907

-서울남부지방법원 2013.10.04 2013가합9018

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.11 2013가단9196

-부산지방법원 2018.01.12 2017나41245

-서울행정법원 2018.05.17 2017구합78087