logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.03 2014가합25813
소유권이전등기말소
Text

1. A real estate donation contract concluded on December 30, 2013 between Defendant C and Defendant B regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s relationship 1) the mother of Defendant C and F are the father of Defendant C, and Defendant C and Defendant B were the legal couple who completed the marriage report on January 29, 201 and on August 19, 2011. (2) On the other hand, Defendant C completed the marriage report with Defendant C on September 16, 2004, which is the transfer of marriage with Defendant B, and completed the H (I) marriage report between G and G on August 19, 2005, and did not notify the Defendant B of this fact at all.

3) Around November 1, 2013, Defendant C became aware of the fact that Defendant C had delivered a child to another male after the marriage. Around November 4, 2013, Defendant C filed a lawsuit seeking divorce and consolation money against Defendant C (Seoul Family Court Decision 2013Dhap10482). Around November 4, 2013, Defendant C filed a lawsuit against Defendant C (Seoul Family Court Decision 2013Dhap10482) on January 13, 2014, during the divorce proceeding, “Defendant C, for marriage with Defendant B, had thoroughly concealed the fact that Defendant C gave birth of a child between her husband and her husband during the divorce proceeding and her husband during the marriage between November 1, 2013, and that it had committed an unlawful act including transfer of real estate between K and her husband until the latest date, and that the content of property division of Defendant C had been made to Defendant C’s husband and the Plaintiff by 20384,201.”

Since July 9, 2014, the Seoul Family Court determined that Defendant B would not have married with Defendant C, inasmuch as Defendant C was aware of the marriage history, child birth, and the fact that Defendant C was trying to marry with Defendant C, the Seoul Family Court determined that Defendant B would not have married with Defendant C. Thus, Defendant B would have been married due to Defendant C’s deception.

arrow