(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2021.03.30 2020가단276932

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2021.03.30 2020가단276932

사해행위취소

Text

The defendant and the non-party B (C) concluded on July 16, 2019 with respect to 2/9 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. The facts stated in the grounds for the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9. Thus, the agreement on division of inherited property concluded on July 16, 2019 between the defendant and the non-party B (C birth; hereinafter "non-party") on the share of 2/9 of the real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked. The defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership due to the restoration of the authentic name with respect to the share of 2/9 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The defendant asserts that, with no knowledge of the excess status of the debt of the non-party, after the deceased's death by the deceased's will, the agreement was reached on the division of the inherited property for the purpose of residence of the defendant. Thus, the defendant acted in good faith.

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of an act of gambling, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that the beneficiary had been unaware of delegation of the act of gambling in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the act of gambling.

At the time of the act of deception, the presumption of bad faith under this law is reversed, and there is no proof of the defendant to recognize the defendant in good faith. The defendant's presumption of bad faith under this law is reversed, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant in good faith. The defendant's act of deception is limited to the defendant's unilateral statement or the third party's abstract statement, and thus the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is difficult to accept.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 7. 4. 선고 2004다61280 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2021.04.13 2020가단240193

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2017. 03. 28. 선고 2016가단57982 판결

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.11.25 2019가단213919

-전주지방법원 2020.04.08 2019가단15207

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.09.20 2018가단117324