logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단31072
전세보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the report of marriage with C, a parent of the Defendant, and lived with his/her child.

B. On August 2013, the Plaintiff and C agreed to reside in the Dong-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S. (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as a deposit for lease, and paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant as a deposit for lease.

C. On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff, C, and their children were living in the instant apartment complex. Around November 2013, the Plaintiff was living in the instant apartment complex due to conflict between the Plaintiff and C.

C On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for divorce, etc. under this Court 2013ddan13481, and the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the claim for divorce, etc. under this Court 2014ddan413.

E. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff and C agreed to divorce on the date of mediation of the said family case.

With respect to the division of property, etc. of the foregoing family case on August 6, 2015, the court rendered a ruling that the pertinent apartment lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million shall be deemed as C’s active property, and that the pertinent apartment lease deposit of KRW 83,243,800, the Plaintiff’s net property shall be deemed as KRW 13,700,000, and that the ratio of division of property shall be KRW 35% and KRW 65%, and that C shall pay KRW 49,313,470 to the Plaintiff as the division of property. The above ruling became final and conclusive on August 27, 2015.

F. C paid 49,316,470 won to the Plaintiff on August 27, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, but around November 30, 2013, he/she again lived with C in the said apartment, and had no access to the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant’s above KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff from November 30, 2013 to the said deposit.

arrow