logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.17 2017가단5101617
유류분 반환청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B’s (i) 139/10,00 of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table and Sheet list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B (1) and Defendant C (1 South) died on May 8, 2011, when the deceased E (the deceased died on September 19, 2013) and the deceased deceased deceased F (the deceased’s death on June 4, 2016, hereinafter the deceased’s death), the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter the Intervenor’s Intervenor), the Plaintiff A (3), the deceased (4), and the Defendant C (1 South). The Defendant G (4) died on May 8, 201, before his parents. On August 31, 2016, the Intervenor reported the renunciation of inheritance to the Daegu Family Court on August 31, 2016, which was immediately after the death of the deceased and accepted the said report on September 27, 2016.

B. The Deceased, other than the Plaintiff, bequeathed the entire property of the Deceased to the Defendants and the Intervenor, and the list and its value (based on the market value, etc. of real estate as of September 12, 2018, which is the closing date of pleadings) of the Deceased’s property at the time of commencing the inheritance are as listed below (i).

On the other hand, the plaintiff, the defendants, and the assistant intervenor, who are the inheritor of the deceased, did not receive special benefits.

Intervenor 1/22 H apartment 906-404.55 1/24,000 who is liable for the obligation to refund the deposit for lease deposit (the value of 200,000 won) with the ownership of real estate size (the value of 1/30,000 won): 1/2,00,000 H apartment 90-40,000 2H apartment 917-101 (attached Table 1), 41.30/213,00 : 1/4: 1/410,00 : Defendant B: 25 million won: 3H apartment 910-102 (attached Table 2); 1/25,000, 300,000 won or less; 300,000 won or less; 405.21/214, 1/200, Defendant B1/400, and 360,000

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s forced reserve of inheritance was infringed due to the legacy of the deceased’s properties against the Defendants and the Intervenor’s Intervenor, respectively.

arrow