logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.29 2016나54824
결혼축의금 반환소송
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion ① The defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, and C is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant.

② On June 16, 1997, between the Defendant and C, the Plaintiff: (a) agreed to give the Defendant a gift of KRW 5,000,000 under the pretext of marriage congratulatory (hereinafter “instant gift contract”); and (b) on the same day, the Plaintiff donated the amount of KRW 5,00,000 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s annual salary to the Defendant by receiving the so-called marina loan.

③ Since around October 2012, C received each diagnosis of depression, etc., and around December 2012, 2012, C received medical care by suffering from a shoulder abundance, etc. in 2015, the Defendant was not able to nursing or care, and even if the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to find C, it was rejected.

④ The Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant did not perform the terms and conditions under the instant gift contract, rescinded the instant gift contract by serving the duplicate of the complaint. As such, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 5,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff as a marriage incentive upon the fulfillment of the duty of restitution following the rescission of the instant gift contract, and the delay damages therefrom.

2. Determination

A. Whether the other party bears a separate obligation in relation to the gift or whether the other party has agreed to assume a separate obligation in relation to the gift or not is a matter of fact-finding, since it constitutes a matter of fact-finding, since it constitutes a matter of fact-finding, since it is a matter of confirmation as to whether there was an intention to conflict between the parties to a certain legal effect and whether it was made by expressing it explicitly or implicitly by speech or behavior, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878, May 27, 2010).

arrow