Partijen zien met elkaar gehuwd gew

Partijen zien met elkaar gehuwd geweest en besloten in 2011 om door onderlinge toestemming uit de echt te scheiden.

Daarvoor deden zij beroep op notaris WALLAYS te Leuven.

Op 31 mei 2012 werd voor notaris WALLAYS de regelingsakte verleden.

In deze akte wordt vermeld:

De akte vermeldt letterlijk dat er door geen van beide partijen een opleg dient te worden betaald.

Partijen waren immers een opleg van 20500 E overeengekomen die concluant voorrafgaand aan het verlijeden van de akte reeds ann mevrow Fukunishi had betaald, zodat deze niet meer vermeld diende te worden in de akte zelf.

Thans beweert mevrouw Fukunishi tegen de stukken van het dossie in dat er een opleg van 80,000 E in haar voordeel zou zijn overeengekomen en dat concluant haar bijgevolg nog een saldo van 59m500 E verschuldigd zou zijn.

Het is voor dit beweerde saldo van 59,500 E dat mevrouw Fukunishi overging tot dagvaarding van concluant.

結果 (英語) 1:

Parties have been married to each other and decided in 2011 at by consent from the really separate.Therefore they appeal to notary WALLAYS in Leuven.On May 31, 2012 was the settlement deed passed before notary public WALLAYS.Is mentioned in this Act:The Act mentions literally that neither party a lay-on is to be paid.Parties were a lay-on by 20500 E agreed that voorrafgaand to the verlijeden of the Act already concluant ann mevrow Fukunishi had paid, so that it no longer had to be mentioned in the Act itself.Now Mrs Fukunishi claims against the pieces of the dossie in that there is a lay-on by 80.000 E in its favor would be agreed and that therefore a balance of 59m500 E concluant her would be payable.It is for this alleged balance of 59.500 E that passed for a summons of Mrs Fukunishi concluant.

結果 (英語) 2:

Parties were married to each other and decided in 2011 by mutual consent of separating the real. Before that, she called on notary WALLAYS Leuven. On May 31, 2012 before Notary WALLAYS was the settlement deed executed. In this deed states: The deed literally states that none of the two parties a bearing has to be paid. The parties had indeed agreed to a surcharge of 20 500 E that concluant precedent to verlijeden the deed already ann mevrow Fukunishi had paid so that it no longer listed should be in the deed itself. Now says Ms. Fukunishi against the pieces of the Dossie that there would be a surcharge of 80.000 E in its favor agreed and that concluant its region therefore has a balance of 59m500 E would be due. It is for this alleged balance 59.500 E Ms Fukunishi proceeded to subpoena concluant.

結果 (英語) 3:

parties together, married and decided in 2011 by mutual consent to the divorce.

did they appeal to notary wallays leuven.

on 31 may 2012 was the notary wallays regelingsakte past.

in this act shall be indicated:

the act indicates that by not literally a rim of both parties should be paid.

parties were a rim of 20500 e concluant voorrafgaand agreed to act verlijeden of ann mevrow fukunishi had already paid, so that it is not needed to be listed in the act.

now mrs fukunishi claims against the pieces of the dossie in a rim of 80.000 e in her advantage would be that concluant agreed and, consequently, a balance of 59m500 e would be due.

it is claimed for this balance of 59500 e that mrs fukunishi adopting writ of concluant. "