logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.11 2018나1749
대여금
Text

1. The appeal by the counterclaim defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the counterclaim Defendant.

Counterclaims, claims and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the new arguments in the trial of the counter-defendant, and therefore, it is consistent with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Around January 5, 1995, the counterclaim Defendant purchased a house without permission from North-Gu E-Gu, North-gu, 277 square meters and above ground under the name of his father He purchased a house under the name of the counterclaim Defendant. Around January 30, 2012, the counterclaim Plaintiff, without obtaining the consent of the counterclaim Defendant, filed a donation of 1/2 of each of the above real estate in the name of F and H, an infant of the counterclaim, and Nonparty G, son, and the counterclaim Defendant filed a claim against the counterclaim for the registration of ownership transfer. Since the counterclaim Defendant leased the counterclaim Defendant with KRW 37 million on May 15, 2015 and KRW 37 million on May 26, 2015, and returned each of the above real estate to the counterclaim Defendant, the counterclaim Plaintiff did not have any obligation to return the ownership of each of the above real estate to the Nonparty, and thus, the counterclaim Defendant did not have any obligation to return the ownership of each of the above real estate to the Nonparty.

The facts of the counterclaim defendant's above assertion are insufficient to acknowledge only the entries of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including the number of branch numbers for those with a branch number) and the testimony of Eul witness of the trial party witness I. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion by the counterclaim defendant is without merit.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow