logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.02.03 2014나7858
약정에 의한 소유권이전등기 등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiffs asserted that: (a) the agreement on the division of inherited property between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant on November 27, 2012 was effective; and accordingly, (b) sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer regarding shares of 1/4 shares in the instant claim land; and (c) the Defendant received and used KRW 234,232,073 of the insurance money paid upon the death of the Plaintiffs and their mother’s mother; and (c) the Plaintiffs asserted that the inherited property should have been distributed equally in accordance with the statutory inheritance shares with the Defendant; and (d) each of them sought payment of KRW 58,58,000 (= KRW 234,232,073 + KRW 1/4,000).

As to this, the first instance court: (1) recognized that the agreement on the division of inherited property on November 27, 2012 was effective, and ordered the defendant to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each share of 1/4 shares in the land claimed in this case; and (2) dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for payment of the amount equivalent to the statutory inheritance out of the above insurance money, on the ground that the insurance money received by the defendant was used as the repayment of debts and operating funds in the HUS station by implied agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the claim for the execution of the procedure against the land of this case, which is the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters:

Part 3 of Paragraph 4 of the 2012 letter of agreement on the division of inherited property, dated November 27, 2012, "the letter of agreement on division of inherited property," is deemed to read "the letter of agreement on division of inherited property, dated November 27, 2012," "the letter of agreement on division of inherited property," respectively.

No. 3 below the second sentence.

arrow