(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.04.25 2013가단72134

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) 부산지방법원 2014.04.25 2013가단72134

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion is between C and his husband, and the defendant concluded a title trust agreement with C on the apartment registered in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant. Since the plaintiff purchased the apartment of this case as stated in the separate sheet with C and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff terminated the above title trust agreement by subrogation in order to preserve his claim for the amount of money transferred to C, the defendant

2. Determination

A. Article 830(1) of the Civil Act provides, “The property acquired in one side’s own name and the property acquired in one side’s own name during the marriage shall be the unique property of the father.” The property acquired in one side’s name during the marriage shall be presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner.

However, in a case where it is proved that the other party or both parties have acquired the property by bearing the price of the property, the presumption of a special property shall be reversed and it shall be deemed that the other party or both parties own the property, but there was cooperation between the other party in acquiring the property.

It cannot be said that there is a reason to reverse the presumption solely with the fact that there was a mutual assistance in marriage life.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da21982 delivered on December 11, 1992). B.

According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff, the fact that the Defendant and C together reside in the apartment of this case as a husband and wife, and that C had owned an apartment (Daundong 108, 304, Chang-gu, Chang-si) under his own name before purchasing the apartment of this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize that C and the Defendant had a title trust agreement on the apartment of this case on such circumstance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim.

참조조문

-민법 제830조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 1992. 12. 11. 선고 92다21982 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 1992. 8. 14. 선고 92다16171 판결

-대법원 1998. 12. 22. 선고 98두15177 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2019.04.23 2018가단23767

-서울고등법원 2019.12.12 2019나2017322

-인천지방법원 2018.11.01 2017가단254012