beta
Text
1. As to KRW 29,341,225 and KRW 28,589,615 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A shall be from November 3, 2004 to March 17, 2009.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in Appendix 2;
B. Judgment by deeming confessions: Defendant A was served with a copy of a complaint and preparatory documents stating the Plaintiff’s claim for monetary payment, but did not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for monetary payment.
Therefore, pursuant to the main text of Article 150(3) and main text of Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the above defendant is deemed to have led to
2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B
A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant A for an order to pay indemnity amount with the Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea19096. On March 5, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court: “A” from November 2, 2004 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order; “The payment order was issued at 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; the above payment order was finalized around that time; “A was dead on October 15, 2010, owned the real estate listed in the real estate list (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”); and “A was the spouse of the Defendant B, DH (H) and C (H).
3) The inheritors, including the Defendants, of C, shall reach an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) with the content that Defendant B independently succeeds to the instant real estate after C’s death.
(4) On March 20, 2015, the Incheon District Court registered the entire real estate of this case on March 20, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant B, which caused “the inheritance due to a consultation division” under Article 25667 of the Incheon District Court’s registry office, on the ground that the instant division agreement between D and Defendant B was a fraudulent act, on the ground that the instant division agreement between D and Defendant B was a fraudulent act.