logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.21 2015나2033739
유류분반환
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. For the plaintiffs:

A. Defendant C shall be KRW 82,185,449, respectively, and Defendant D shall be KRW 12,481,659, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 1953, the parties’ relevant netF (hereinafter “the deceased”) married with G, and had H, I, and Defendants as children between G, and G died on April 4, 1981.

On May 6, 1986, the deceased re-born with J on May 6, 1986, and had the Plaintiffs as their children between J and J, and divorced from J around November 2, 2010.

On the other hand, the deceased died on January 15, 201, and K is Defendant E’s wife.

B. 1) The Plaintiffs are the grounds for the claim that “The deceased donated 1/6 shares of 1/6 of the wife population L and M forest to Defendant E and K, respectively, and 2/6 shares of 2/6 shares to Defendant C and Defendant D. ② each of the 1/8 shares of the N Site and Ground Buildings in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, to Defendant C and Defendant E, respectively, and ③ the disposal proceeds of 1.2 billion won in the land purchase price of the wife populationO, 1.2 billion won in the land purchase price of the land in Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and 1.20 million won in the land of the wife populationO, and 120,000,000 won in cash to H, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for the claim in the prior suit”).

(2) On February 11, 2011, the Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gahap2249, filed a lawsuit against H, Defendants, and K for the claim of forced inheritance. Accordingly, H also filed a counterclaim of the claim of forced inheritance (No. 2011Gahap9325, Dong District Court 201) that the Plaintiffs received cash from the deceased as the cause of the claim (hereinafter “instant prior suit”).

2) As to this, the Seoul Eastern District Court dismissed the claim for the counterclaim of H, and decided to recognize the return of the legal reserve equivalent to the judgment amount as shown in the plaintiffs' claim, by recognizing that the portion of the plaintiff's claim for the counterclaim of H was a donation to Defendant E and calculating the legal reserve of inheritance. ② The portion of the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's entire claim for the plaintiff's entire claim for the plaintiff's donation to K in the main facts as the donation to Defendant E in the main facts

hereinafter referred to as "the first instance court".

arrow