(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단144116

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단144116

건물 퇴거 등

Text

1. The defendant shall leave from the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 24, 1996, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with the Defendant.

B. On February 7, 2006, the Plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership relating to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc., including divorce and solatium (Seoul Family Court 2013Dhap11386), and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff (Seoul Family Court 2015Dhap755), and on January 28, 2016, the judgment was rendered that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant divorced, and divide the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s property, including the instant real property, into Plaintiff 40%, and Defendant 60%, and that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a property division worth KRW 426,00,000, out of the amount to be reverted to the Plaintiff.”

Accordingly, the Defendant, etc. appealed with respect to consolation money and division of property except for divorce (Seoul High Court 2016Reu240 (principal lawsuit), 2016Reu257 (Counterclaim), Sept. 28, 2016), rendered a judgment that “The property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including the instant real estate, shall be divided into 40%, and Defendant 60%, but the amount equivalent to KRW 406,00,000 out of the amount to be reverted to the Plaintiff was paid to the Plaintiff as division of property.”

Since then, the plaintiff and the defendant appealed [Supreme Court Decision 2016Meu2602, 2016Meu2619 (Counterclaim)] and the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on February 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant does not have any title to occupy the real estate of this case since he divorced with the plaintiff who is the owner of the real estate of this case, and the defendant is obligated to leave the real estate of this case

3. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant is able to have 60% of the slaughter tool according to the judgment on the above divorce case, and the division of property pursuant to the above judgment has been paid in full. Thus, the Defendant may withdraw from preparing a receipt for full payment.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.17 2017가단134376

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.14 2017가합876

-서울동부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나24220

-인천지방법원 2020.11.19 2020나56981

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.18 2016가단5265545