(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.18 2015가단10201

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.18 2015가단10201

부당이득금반환 등

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 as to the cause of the claim and the Defendant jointly purchased Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Officetel 1202 (hereinafter “instant officetels”) around 208.

In consideration of future inheritance problems, ownership transfer registration shall be made in the name of the defendant, but the registration certificate shall be kept by the plaintiff in order to prevent the defendant's voluntary disposal, and the disposition of the officetel of this case shall proceed under mutual agreement and settle the sales price, and the proceeds of the officetel of this case (monthly rent) were agreed to be received by the plaintiff as a cost of old age

On March 17, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the instant officetel in KRW 140 million (the amount of KRW 8 million among them shall be succeeded to the previous lease deposit) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on May 7, 2008.

In relation to the purchase of the instant officetels, the total of KRW 146,860,234 won was paid. The final amounting to KRW 68,860,234 (47%) was paid by the Plaintiff, and KRW 78,000,000 (53%) was paid by the Defendant.

By March 2012, the Plaintiff received monthly rent for the instant officetel.

The Defendant disposed of the instant officetels on August 23, 2014 without any doubt with the Plaintiff.

(Transaction) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff at least KRW 23,20,000 monthly rent for the instant officetel from April 2012 to August 2014 (i.e., KRW 8 million x 29 months) and at least KRW 68,860,234,00 for the settlement money following the sale of the instant officetel.

(Total) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on February 2, 200 to determine whether there was a joint purchase agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff in relation to the purchase of the instant officetel, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the plaintiff and the defendant are the father.

Plaintiff

No evidence such as the agreement on the joint purchase agreement of the assertion has been prepared.

D (the mother of the Defendant) brought a divorce against the Plaintiff, and

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.10.28 2016가단12567

-대전지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단210747

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.07.01 2014가단16169

-서울남부지방법원 2013.11.19 2012가단80310

-서울서부지방법원 2014.01.23 2010가합17369