logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.11.20 2019가합1442
약정금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on April 20, 2014, and the legal heir was his/her spouse D, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the E, and F.

D died on June 4, 2019.

B. On October 15, 2014, the deceased’s legal heir, who was inherited property, concluded an inheritance division agreement with the purport that the Defendant alone wishes to own G Apartment Hho-gu, Yongsan-gu (hereinafter “instant 1 apartment”), with respect to the property division agreement (hereinafter “instant inherited property division agreement”). On October 20, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the instant 1 apartment on October 20, 2014.

C. As to the first apartment of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 29, 199 on the ground that the Defendant’s spouse was the Defendant’s spouse, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 23, 2006 on the ground of sale in the deceased’s future.

On the other hand, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on May 24, 1995 due to the sale in the name of the deceased on May 24, 1995, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on July 28, 2006.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 2 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that he purchased the second apartment of this case in the name of the deceased.

However, around 2006, the deceased and the defendant exchanged the first apartment of this case and the second apartment of this case in the name of the defendant's spouse without the plaintiff's consent, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 23, 2006 with respect to the first apartment of this case.

Accordingly, the defendant paid 100 million won to the plaintiff, which is equivalent to the difference in the sales price of each apartment house, and the plaintiff receives 20 million won in cash from the defendant.

arrow