(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.05.03 2015가단11405

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) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.05.03 2015가단11405

상속회복청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the spouse of the deceased deceased on September 4, 2010 and sought a claim for recovery of inheritance against the Defendant, who is the mother of C.

2. A claim for recovery of inheritance, based on the premise that he/she is the true inheritor, asserts the ownership of property rights, such as ownership or right of share arising from the inheritance, and demands a reference inheritor or a reference inheritor to cancel the registration of real estate, which is an inherited property, or transfer of registration, etc. to restore the title of the registration thereof, against a third party who acquired a right to the inherited property or entered into a new interest. Here, the reference inheritor refers to a person who infringes on the right of inheritance by taking possession of all or part of the inherited property, under the name of the heir, even though he/she does not have

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da91855, Jul. 23, 2009). The Plaintiff did not clearly specify inherited property subject to inheritance recovery. In light of the purport of the application for examination of evidence, the Plaintiff’s application for examination of evidence, etc., it can be deemed that the Defendant, who completed the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance due to a consultation division as of Sept. 24, 2010, is subject to inheritance recovery of land N, Gyeong-Gun.

However, according to subparagraph 2-1 through 8 (the agreement on the division of inherited property No. 2-5 among them is recognized by the fact-finding of the office E, instead of the fact-finding about the office E, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on Oct. 4, 2010 on the division of inherited property that they would own the above land, which is the deceased's inherited property, as the defendant's inherited property, and accordingly, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant constitutes a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person, and the defendant is not a person who is a person who is a

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 7. 23. 선고 2007다91855 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 1997. 1. 21. 선고 96다4688 판결

-창원지방법원통영지원 2014.02.18 2013가단6871

-대구고등법원 2016.05.25 2015나24073

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.20 2014나31379

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.17 2016가단130325