logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2020.02.11 2019가단52253
공유물분할
Text

Defendant B received KRW 62,594,228 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, is included in each real estate listed in the attached Table.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff owns 16/21 shares among each real estate of this case, Defendant B owns 4/21 shares, and Defendant C owns 1/21 shares, respectively.

There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the division of each real estate of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2 (including provisional number), and the facts of recognition as to the claim for partition of co-owned property of this case, according to the overall purport of the pleading, the plaintiff, co-owner of each real estate of this case, can file a claim for partition of each real estate of this case against the defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269

The method of partition of co-owned property is recognized as reasonable to acquire the pertinent co-owned property to a specific person, comprehensively taking into account the causes of co-ownership, the proportion of co-ownership in co-ownership, the economic value of co-ownership in the case of division, and the desire of co-owners in the case of division. If there are special circumstances to recognize that acquiring the price of share among the co-owners does not impair the substantial fairness among the co-owners, the co-owners are allowed to acquire the co-owned property by means of sole ownership of one or several co-owners, but the co-owners who own the goods in kind are entitled to compensate for the amount of share to other co-owners in kind at an appropriate and reasonable price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30583, Oct. 14, 2004). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the aforementioned evidence and arguments, namely, the Plaintiff’s share in each of the instant real property reaches 76%, the Plaintiff’s share in common property by compensation for damages, and there is no explicit objection to the amount of payment by public notice itself.

arrow