(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.06.26 2014가단12152

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) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.06.26 2014가단12152

소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, the Jeonju District Court:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) was 2 South and North Korea with the network D, and the Defendant was the son of the deceased. The deceased was the son of the deceased.

B. On July 14, 1999, the Deceased made a will to legacy (the condition that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 20,000,000 to another son’s another son) to the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and E-M 139 square meters in the following cities:

(C) On December 12, 2011, the registration of transfer of the F’s ownership was cancelled on the ground of the gift on December 12, 2011, and the registration was restored to the name of the deceased again on March 5, 2012. D. On September 23, 2013, the Deceased made a will to testament the instant real estate to the Defendant (hereinafter “the second will”).

The Deceased died on October 17, 2014, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 20, 2014 by the second will.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 5, and Evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the second will of the deceased did not accept the intent of his will and did not meet the principle requirements, and that it was null and void on account of the lack of legal requirements in light of the Supreme Court precedents. However, according to the evidence No. 5, the document pertaining to the second will contains the requirement to accept the intent of his will in a notarial deed stating “to listen to the purpose of his will and prepare this deed,” and contrary to the actual document, there is no evidence of the fact that there was no other evidence of the fact that the purport of his will was not available, and thus, the number of the intent of his will was not claimed.

유사 판례

-대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005다57899 판결

-대구지방법원 2016.10.19 2016나385

-대법원 2008. 2. 28. 선고 2005다75019,75026 판결

-전주지방법원군산지원 2019.09.04 2017가합11652

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2017가합554725