logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.01.22 2014가단6434
퇴거등
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 have maintained a de facto marital relationship from around 1994 to around August 2012 with respect to the failure of living together.

B. Around 197, the Defendant moved into the original week, and the Defendant served as a daily worker in Sora Construction, etc., and the Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff from around 2003 to October 201, operated a coloned factory of “C”.

C. From around 1994, the Defendant purchased and sold various real estate, such as land located in Gangwon-gun D, Gangwon-do, and around October 2005, the Defendant commenced the bid of F apartment 101 and 104, which is located in Nowon-si, Seoul-si (hereinafter “F apartment”) around October 2005, and the Defendant acquired F apartment and commercial building 100 through sale, public sale, auction, etc. from that time to December 201, and operated the rental business with the Plaintiff’s registration of the rental business operator.

Through the above process, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on the portion of 8/11 out of 7/11 shares in the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list and 8/11 shares in the real estate listed in

(hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) each real estate listed in the separate sheet is collectively named.

The Defendant filed a claim for division of property against the Plaintiff as the court 2013-Ma133, and on February 20, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment on the following: (a) on the grounds of the division rate: (b) the F apartment, including the instant building, real estate of 33 units, vehicles, etc., including the instant building, as divided property; and (c) the Plaintiff did not seem to have been engaged in special economic activities, such as having occupation; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff appears to have been mainly involved in the formation of the property; (c) one of the grounds for the division rate decision, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 142 million and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the date the instant judgment became final to the day of full payment; and

arrow