beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.09.16 2014가단2766

공유물분할

Text

1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;

Reasons

1. The occurrence of the claim for partition of the article jointly owned;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate list of the facts of recognition (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) was originally owned by Defendant (Appointed Party) B, C, Selection E, Nonparty F, and G, the original form of each of the real estate of this case. However, among each of the real estate of this case, Defendant D sold the above shares and paid the sales price on March 5, 2007 at H compulsory sale procedure conducted by the Gwangju District Court, which commenced with respect to each of the non-party G’s 1/5 shares among the real estate of this case. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sold the shares to Non-party F’s 1/5 shares among each of the real estate of this case and paid the sales price in full on September 18, 2012, and did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the real estate of this case between the Plaintiff and Defendant (Appointed Party) and Defendant (Appointed Party), or Defendant D by the closing date of the argument of this case, or it can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as evidence No. 1.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each of the instant real estate, may claim the partition of each of the instant real estate jointly owned by the Defendant (Appointed Party) who is another co-owner, E, and Defendant D pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;

A. As to the method of partition of co-owned property, Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides, "if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably due to the division, the court may order the auction of such property." The requirement in a trial that the partition of co-owned property in kind, in principle, is not a strict interpretation, and that "in the payment division, it shall not be divided in kind" is not a physically strict interpretation. In light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and use value after the division, etc. of co-owned property, the court shall order the partition in kind.