logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.13 2013가단5144401
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff married with the Defendant on March 3, 1969, but filed a claim for divorce and division of property with the Seoul Family Court 2008Dhap4827. At that time, the Plaintiff was solely owned by the Plaintiff, and the building on the ground (a neighboring residential facilities and housing, 238.84 square meters, 175.72 square meters on the 175.72 square meters on the 2nd floor, 148.18 square meters on the 3rd floor, 148.18 square meters on the 4th floor, 148.18 square meters on the 4th floor, and 148.18 square meters on the 4th floor; hereinafter “instant building”) was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant (each 1/2 shares).

B. On February 4, 2010, the Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be divorced, but the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 2.731 million by the Defendant, and at the same time, the Plaintiff shall carry out the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the property division of the instant building and the instant land, and the Defendant shall pay KRW 2.731 million to the Plaintiff as the property division at the same time upon receiving the above registration procedure for transfer of ownership from the Plaintiff.”

C. On February 1, 2011, the Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal on the claim for divorce, and the Seoul High Court changed the first instance judgment to the effect that “the Defendant shall be paid KRW 220 million from the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 220 million from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 2220 million to the Defendant at the same time upon the completion of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership, and the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 2220 million from the Defendant at the same time upon receipt of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership,” and each appeal was filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant against the above appellate judgment to the Supreme Court Decision 201Meu687, which became final and conclusive on May 26, 2011.

E. At the time of the above divorce lawsuit, the defendant is a rooftop among the buildings of this case against D.

arrow