logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.11.03 2015나1046
지분금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Based on the selective claim added at the trial court, the defendant shall be the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be 263,760.

Reasons

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 10 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(1) On April 12, 1985, the Defendant: (a) from C on April 12, 1985, the land of this case is 2,512 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(3) The purchase price of KRW 38 million (hereinafter “instant purchase”) is 38 million.

A) On May 14, 1985, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land. (2) On June 4, 2004, the Defendant changed the land category of the instant land into “pre-sale”, and on July 2, 2004, purchased from G the purchase price of KRW 26,40,000,00 from E, which adjoined to the instant land, KRW 88 square meters (hereinafter “the instant adjacent land”) and combined the instant adjacent land on July 30, 2004 after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future with respect to the instant adjacent land on July 19, 2004.

B. 1) The Defendant leased the instant land to F from the date following the conclusion of the instant sales contract to the date of 2003. Around 1985, H, the Defendant’s wife, brought to the Plaintiff for rice, half of the land usage fee of this case, but the Plaintiff did not receive the Plaintiff’s share of the land while she was born to the Defendant’s living, and the Defendant received the land of this case after the Defendant retired from the Office of Education from around 2003, and cultivated the entire land of this case. Around 2007, the Plaintiff agreed that the Defendant would planting the instant land on a half of the approximately half of the approximately half of the area of the instant land.

3. After concluding the instant sales contract, the Defendant shared the property tax on the instant land until now.

Property tax on the instant land paid by the Defendant from 1985 to 2014 is about KRW 4 million.

C. The plaintiff.

arrow