beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.09.08 2019가단31180

공유물분할청구

Text

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 1986, Defendant Republic of Korea completed registration of preservation of ownership with respect to D 353 square meters in Gangseo-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Afterwards, 185/353 shares in the land of this case (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1 shares”) were sold to E by inheritance, to F, G by inheritance, to H by sale, to the Plaintiff, 97/353 shares in the Plaintiff A by inheritance (hereinafter “Defendant 1 shares”) were transferred to J by inheritance, to K by inheritance, to the Defendant C by sale, and to 37/353 shares in the Plaintiff 2 shares (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2 shares”) by inheritance, to K by inheritance, and to L by inheritance, and to 34/353 shares in the remainder (hereinafter “Defendant 2 shares”) are still owned by the Defendant Republic of Korea.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. The land of this case alleged by the plaintiffs is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants according to their respective shares as stated in the register. The land of this case should be divided as stated in the purport of the claim.

Even if the land of this case was first in a mutual title trust relationship.

In the process of the transfer of the right after the transfer, at least, the relationship between the plaintiff A and the plaintiff A had been extinguished at the time of acquisition of the plaintiff A

B. The Defendants’ assertion is that each of the co-registered persons, from the first Republic of Korea to the present time, share transfer registration was completed in E, I, and K from the first Republic of Korea to the present, shall share sectional ownership through mutual title trust. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot seek a partition against the Defendants on the premise that they are co-owners of the instant land.

(However, the defendant's Republic of Korea is claiming the payment in installments as opposed to the in-kind division as a way of division of common property.3.