(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.09.17 2014가단525894

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) 광주지방법원 2015.09.17 2014가단525894

공유물분할

Text

1. The defendant's sole ownership of the attached real estate shall be the defendant, and the defendant shall pay KRW 70 million to the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff related to the parties was the spouse of the deceased C (Death on June 13, 1991). The defendant is the Dong C, and D is the mother of the defendant and C.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 20, 1995 with respect to one-half shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 20, 1995, on the ground of “sale on April 10, 1995.”

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of judgment as to the claim for partition of co-owned property as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, together with the Plaintiff and D, to purchase the instant real estate in KRW 70 million. However, since ownership of D’s shares was held in title trust with the Defendant, even if the ownership of D’s shares was held in title trust with D, it constitutes a contract title trust in the case of a seller’s good faith, and thus, it appears to have been attributed to the Defendant to seek partition of co-owned property. The ownership of the instant real estate appears to have been co-owned.

However, since the agreement on partition of co-owned property was not reached, the lawsuit in this case sought partition of co-owned property by the method of in-kind division according to the full price compensation that the defendant purchases the Plaintiff’s shares.

The Plaintiff agreed to bear KRW 35 million, which is half of the purchase fund of the instant real estate. This was prepared by using KRW 25 million in cash in possession of KRW 10 million received after renting the instant real estate to another, which is the Plaintiff’s ownership.

The registered titleholder on the instant real estate alleged by the Defendant is “Plaintiff and Defendant,” but the actual purchaser of the instant real estate by paying the purchase price is “D”, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant merely are all the co-owners of the instant real estate. Therefore, the claim for partition of co-owned property based on the premise that

D The instant real estate was 6.0

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.05.26 2016가단30509

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.07.05 2018가단16422

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.23 2019가합102107

-부산지방법원 2020.12.15 2019가단7415

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가합589751