(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나3786 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나3786

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) at the time of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the land 10,11 (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) but, with respect to the land 1 through 5 (hereinafter “instant D”) in the name of E (or, with respect to F land permanently stationed, G name) and the land 6 through 9 (hereinafter “H land”) in the name of E (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). At the time of each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Defendant had completed the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant, but the part No. 1 and No. 2 was registered under the name of the Defendant’s attached list No. 1, and No. 1 and No. 2.

(J) On January 3, 2010, before the Defendant entered into an exchange contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant died, and at the time of death, five children including the spouse and the Defendant, including the Defendant, were the inheritor at the time of the death (hereinafter “instant building”). (The Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract with each other (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

B. In light of the difference between the location and use of each real estate subject to the instant exchange contract and the degree of restriction on rights arising from the right based on the right to collateral security established on each land of the instant case, which the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of each of the instant land during that process, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to cancel the registration of remaining restriction on rights, such as seizure, instead of succeeding the Defendant to the secured obligation established on each of the instant land. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant provided the instant building as collateral to the financial institution, and agreed

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 2010.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단33604

-대전지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가단216151

-대전지방법원논산지원 2020.08.27 2019가단2165

-대전지방법원 2018.02.08 2016가단36154

-수원고등법원 2020.11.05 2020나10417