logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.12.02 2015나37836
유류분 반환 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals and the claims extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

1. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning this case in this case by the court of first instance are the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2.(b)

1) In addition to the dismissal as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As above, the Defendant paid a relatively small amount of money to G, its branch, and his family members over a several years, and transferred KRW 43 million to G on April 26, 2010, the savings was cancelled on October 17, 2012 and transferred KRW 160 million to G, and paid KRW 60 million to G’s G G G G G G G G’s G G’s G fraud on September 1, 2014. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing evidence, it is difficult to find that the donation to the Defendant is substantially the same as the donation directly made to G. ① The Defendant was a non-profit religious organization established by K, a non-profit religious organization established by the deceased’s father at the early 1950s, whose registration was made within the BI religious organization on June 4, 197, the Deceased had its articles of association on the deceased’s operation, such as the date on which it was registered with the Steering Committee, and the Defendant had a new inspection or inspection organization on the deceased’s operation.

② Since G is responsible for the operation of a temple with the authority to manage and dispose of the temple property granted as the Defendant’s well-known, G is difficult to readily conclude that it used the Defendant’s temple property for personal purposes.

In addition, as seen above, the defendant is an independent right as a non-profit religious corporation that differs from G, and even if G used part of its temple property for its personal purpose, such fact alone.

arrow