(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.02 2016가단533531

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) 수원지방법원 2018.10.02 2016가단533531

상속회복 등 청구

Text

1. The Defendant is as of October 12, 2016 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and Nonparty C are children of the network D (Death on September 8, 2015).

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) was owned by the Deceased. On July 15, 2015, the Deceased made a will to legacy the instant land to the Defendant, and notarized it.

C. On October 23, 2015, the Daejeon District Court’s budget registry office received the instant land from Daejeon District Court on the ground of testamentary gift (hereinafter “instant testamentary gift”) as of September 8, 2015, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) was completed.

The apartment building No. 202, 285, 285, 202 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was owned by the deceased. On July 1, 2014, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of Nonparty F on the same day.

The F deposited KRW 220,00,000 in the deceased’s account on July 9, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

A. The primary claim for the instant land: At around July 2015, the deceased had the instant will, at the time of the occurrence of the said testament, had the capacity to perform his/her duties with dementia and acute cerebral brain. As such, the instant testamentary gift is null and void. As such, the share of 1/3 of the instant land ought to be registered on the ground that the Plaintiff, who is the inheritance right holder of 1/3 equity, has the ownership transfer on the ground

Preliminary Claim: 1/6 shares should be returned to the Plaintiff as a legal reserve of inheritance even if the testamentary gift of this case is not invalid.

B. The substance of the purchase and sale of the instant apartment as to the instant apartment was a donation by the deceased to the Defendant, and only the Defendant registered the instant apartment in the name of Nonparty F.

Therefore, the Defendant, the market price of the apartment of this case, KRW 437,50,00,000, KRW 72,916,666, which is the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단53212

-서울북부지방법원 2017.08.24 2016가단137804

-인천지방법원 2016.10.13 2016가단202892

-서울고등법원 2016.06.02 2015나14664

-의정부지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가합54319