(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가단216714

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) 대전지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가단216714

공유물분할

Text

1. The remaining amount of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list after it is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted;

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the facts that the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party, and the defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), together with the ratio listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and that no agreement has been reached between the above parties on the method of partition, and that no special agreement on the prohibition of partition exists with respect to the real estate of this case.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) may request the other co-owners to divide the real estate of this case as co-owners.

B. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including (i) the instant real estate is a residential loan, and thus it is practically impossible to divide it in kind; (ii) the instant real estate is not currently residing in the present real estate; (iii) the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated party among co-owners purchased one-third of each of the instant real estate in the auction procedure around July 19, 2016; and (iv) the Defendants are successors who inherit one-third of each of the instant real estate in the auction procedure around September 6, 201; (v) the Defendant C is currently missing; and (v) the above co-owners’ relationship and share ratio are deemed not easy to make a decision on disposal or use of, or profit from, the instant real estate if left the real estate in common, and all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the fact that the decision on the disposal or use of, and profit from, the instant real estate would be difficult, it is reasonable to refer the real estate to the auction and to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendants.

3. In conclusion, we decide to divide the instant real estate as above and decide as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.11.27 2019가단111926

-창원지방법원 2020.09.25 2019가단122441

-울산지방법원 2015.09.16 2015가단52540

-대전지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가단36901

-울산지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단12170