logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나17163 (1)
사해행위취소
Text

1. The appellate court shall dismiss the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the part of claim against the Defendant C, which has changed in exchange in the appellate court.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant forest land, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the G on February 6, 1933, and the register was destroyed due to the 625 incident.

B. G died on July 15, 1964, and H, four South Korea, succeeded to the instant forest.

H There is no dispute among the original defendants regarding the fact that H inherited the instant forest from G.

There are seven children of H, including J, and Defendant C.

C. On March 20, 1995, Defendant C completed registration of preservation of ownership under the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

On September 24, 2012, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation on September 21, 2012. D.

H died on March 15, 2003.

Plaintiff

A clan is established with descendants of H as members of the clan after H died.

E. On the other hand, H’s wife died on June 4, 1994 before H, and I’s grave was installed in the land located in Sejong-si (hereinafter “AA”) and was installed in the same place as H’s grave.

Since around 2009, H and I’s grave was restored to the instant forest, and the graves of N (H’s 3 South) Q (Death on May 7, 2014) were installed in the instant forest.

[Reasons for Recognition] A-3, 7, 9, 1-3, 1-3, 7, 1-1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Plaintiff 1 had the intent to use the forest of this case as a scam for the purpose of charging the forest of this case. However, for the convenience of registration, Plaintiff 1 accepted the registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the future of Defendant C, and did not have donated the forest of this case to Defendant C. Thus, the forest of this case constitutes the inherited property of H’s co-inheritors.

arrow