(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.06.24 2013가단106827

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) 서울동부지방법원 2014.06.24 2013가단106827

소유권이전등기

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 5, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. On September 29, 2006, the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant, who was saw on September 29, 2006, on September 27, 2006.

B. On September 29, 2006, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the sale on September 27, 2006 with respect to the land F, Ulsan-gun, the G, and 126 square meters (hereinafter the above land is added to each of the above real estate listed in the separate sheet) from the Defendant on September 27, 2006. However, each of the above real estate was transferred to Ulsan-gun on May 12, 2010 on the ground of an agreement on the acquisition of public land on May 11, 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant received the total amount of KRW 85,375,000 as compensation for expropriation.

C. On June 30, 2008, the deceased died, and the plaintiffs, H, and I, who are their ancillarys, jointly inherited the deceased's property one-five shares, respectively. However, at the time of the death, there was no particular property for the deceased.

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the claim 1) The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased donated each real estate of this case, which is the only property of the deceased, to the defendant. As a result, there was a shortage of the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance, which is the co-inheritors of the deceased, the defendant, as stated in the claim, that the plaintiff, who is the right holder of the legal reserve of inheritance, has the obligation to return the property equivalent to the portion [1/10 each = 1/10 (i.e., statutory share 1/5 x 1/2) ] as stated in the part in the claim. 2) Accordingly, the defendant argued that the plaintiff is liable to return the legal reserve of inheritance of this case, on the grounds of the establishment of the duty to return the legal reserve of inheritance of this case and the scope of the return, etc., while even if the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance of this case was infringed due to the donation of

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.05.22 2013가합8174

-광주지방법원 2016.09.30 2015가합1903

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.08 2015가합39029

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.08 2014가합999

-부산지방법원 2018.08.21 2016가단354271