logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.12.11 2018나2065775
공유물분할
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the said Defendants ordering payment of money against Defendant D or G shall be revoked, and that part shall be accordingly.

Reasons

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (3 to 16 pages 10), with the exception of the following parts, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The decision shall be supplemented as follows in paragraph 2.

As set out below, determination on the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment regarding “O land and buildings” as set out in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 (the 16th day to the 19th end of the first instance judgment) is added.

As above, the judgment was partially added, the part of the judgment (one to seven parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance) is different.

2. Supplementary parts

A. As to “L land and building” as indicated in Attachment List No. 1, the Plaintiffs asserted as follows. The above land and building were owned by Defendant G, and three and the deceased. Defendant G occupied the above real estate without permission. The deceased divorced on January 30, 2013, and transferred his/her share to K on March 11, 2013 due to division of property, and died on September 28, 2013. The Plaintiffs, who were their children, succeeded to the claim for return of unjust enrichment before the deceased transferred to K, and K transferred the claim for return of unjust enrichment, which they came to have upon the transfer of the said share, to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant G was obligated to return unjust enrichment as stated in Paragraph (1) to the Plaintiffs. However, even if the evidence and evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs from the first instance court and the evidence submitted by the Defendant G’s co-owner, Defendant G’s co-owner No. 31 and 32, Defendant G1 were additionally aware of the aforementioned share.

arrow