logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.04.20 2017가단213244
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C married with the Defendant, and died on January 25, 2016, 2016.

B. At the time of the death of C, each real estate listed in the separate sheet (the instant real estate) was included in the inherited property at the time of the death of C. However, on January 28, 2016, the said real estate was solely inherited by the Defendant following the agreement on the division of inherited property between the Defendant, D, E, and F (the instant agreement on the division of inherited property), and based on which the registration of ownership transfer was completed in Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court Decision 4897, Feb. 11, 2016.

C. After the Plaintiff married on June 1, 2002 with F, the south of C, and on June 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was married with C, the parent of C, the Defendant, and the instant real estate (house), and was 1 South and North knives. However, on April 2014, F was killed on December 11, 2016, after receiving a decision on the ambiat in the registry.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, witness E's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The deceased and the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff would have divided the instant real estate upon obtaining the deposit book when the Plaintiff and the husband would have divided the said real estate. In addition, upon the death of the Plaintiff on January 25, 2016, C decided to dispose of the instant real estate in order to prepare cash for the division of inherited property for the convenience of disposal, and completed the inheritance registration of the instant real estate under the name of the Defendant alone, the extension of the Plaintiff’s husband. However, as the Plaintiff’s husband’s death, F, who was the husband, denied the division agreement, and the Defendant, D, and E, primarily, revoked the intention of the agreement on division of the instant inherited property on the ground of deception or mistake, or rescinded it on the ground of the nonperformance of the division agreement. 2) If the deceased F, without any condition, expressed its intention to divide the said inherited property without any condition, such unilateral transfer of rights is an act that may seriously endanger the life of the Plaintiff, the deceased F, and the bereaved families, as the act under the Civil Act.

arrow