(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017가단120882

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017가단120882

소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2003, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on April 21, 2003 on each of the land and buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”, and on each of the instant land and buildings, which are the land and buildings on the land and the land at least Fluri in specifying each of the instant land.

B. The Plaintiff, in South Korea, has the Defendant as the South Korea, and G as the South Korea.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence 1 and 2(including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff demanded that the ownership of each of the instant real estate be transferred, while the Plaintiff was expected to live in the parent’s property without any special occupation or skill for about 35 years. Accordingly, around April 21, 2003, the Plaintiff, while donating each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, determined that the Plaintiff faithfully supported the Plaintiff and incurred living expenses (hereinafter “the instant donation”).

2) However, the Plaintiff did not perform the duty of support by using verbal language, etc. without paying living expenses from the first month after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, and the Plaintiff did not perform the duty of support by making the Defendant’s house B and G around 2009. Ultimately, since the Defendant did not perform the duty of support, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant donation contract with the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint. 2) The Plaintiff was donated to Defendant H land on the condition that the Plaintiff had repaid KRW 37,00,000 of the facility funds borrowed when the Plaintiff newly built a stable, and did not perform the duty of support as alleged by the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The gift is a contract that takes effect by one of the parties expressing an intention to confer a property free of charge to the other party, and the other party approves it (Article 554 of the Civil Act). It is the interpretation of the expression of intention to determine the objective meaning of the gift contract concluded by the

참조조문

-민법 제554조

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가단507856

-수원지방법원 2018.02.27 2016가단540430

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.11.05 2020가단3057

-수원지방법원 2016.03.10 2015가단125483

-창원지방법원진주지원 2017.12.12 2017가단4368