logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.06.09 2015다239591
유류분반환
Text

The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff B is reversed, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff B is dismissed.

Plaintiff

A.

Reasons

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to regard the property owned by the Defendant, other than the Plaintiffs’ property donated under D, and that D’s amount indicated in the gift tax payment receipt imposed on the Defendant, which was in custody of D, and the amount transferred each month from June 11, 2007 to October 10, 2012, to the Defendant’s name account or Defendant’s wife I’s name, and that D’s amount was a donation to the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to donation, violation of the rules of evidence, and incomplete deliberation, etc.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the court below held that since the plaintiffs agreed on the division of inherited property with all inheritors including the defendant and co-inheritors to inherit a part of inherited property independently, the plaintiffs renounced their right to claim the return of forced inheritance reserve against the defendant (hereinafter "claim No. 1") or the part corresponding to the value of inherited property they decided to inherit independently, the difference in the plaintiffs' forced inheritance reserve increased, so the plaintiffs cannot claim the return of forced inheritance reserve against the defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “B argument”) rejected all the Defendant’s arguments.

(2) First, we examine the part concerning the argument in the ground of appeal No. 1.

The court below determined at any time that co-inheritors may divide their inherited property by agreement (Article 1013 of the Civil Act), and when calculating the property, which is the basis of calculating the legal reserve of inheritance, not only the net property of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, but also

arrow