logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.09.07 2016가단203999
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-1, 2-3, and 5:

On January 24, 2015, Non-party C died (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Defendant was the head of the deceased, the Plaintiff, and the South-North Korea. As to each real estate listed in the attached Table’s real estate list (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), on April 4, 1991, the Plaintiff and the Defendant registered the ownership transfer of 2.6/12 shares, respectively, in the name of the deceased and the Defendant.

B. On October 11, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase 2.6/12 shares equivalent to the Plaintiff’s shares in the instant commercial building at KRW 360,000,000, and to pay the down payment of KRW 370,000,000 at the time of the contract, and to pay the intermediate payment of KRW 170,000,000 on October 11, 2012; and the remainder of KRW 160,000,000,000 on October 12, 2012, the following agreement was concluded; on October 12, 2012, the ownership transfer registration was made under the Defendant’s name on the ground of the said sale.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Of the total amount of KRW 610 million for loans secured by the instant commercial building, the amount of KRW 133,000,000 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the total amount of KRW 61,00,000 for loans secured by the instant commercial building and KRW 37,000,000 for the lease deposit of the instant commercial building, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s share out of KRW 17,000,00

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was entirely managing the instant commercial building when the Defendant received all loans and deposits for lease secured by the instant commercial building, etc., and the Plaintiff did not receive loans or deposits for lease secured by the instant commercial building according to the Plaintiff’s share.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not know such circumstances properly.

arrow