(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.03 2015가단5335508

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.03 2015가단5335508

공유물분할

Text

1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the share ratio of each 1/2.

(However, due to an error in the process, the current name of the owner on the register is mistakenly stated in C). (b)

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Division of an article jointly owned may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement. However, if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to a failure to reach an agreement, the court shall, in principle, divide the article in kind, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the price may be paid by ordering the auction of the article only when the value of the article might be significantly reduced. Here, the requirement that "the division may not be made in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of the article jointly owned in kind after the division.

The phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division even if the co-owner is a person.

In this case, there is no evidence to regard the content of the spot-sale, which the Plaintiff seeks, as a fair and equitable measure, in light of the health class, the real estate type, surrounding environment, and current use, and there is no evidence to order the spot-sale to the Plaintiff and the Defendant with a fair and equitable content, and the Plaintiff is also a method of spot-sale due to such reasons as appraisal

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.07.26 2016가단349163

-창원지방법원 2020.11.24 2020가단109895

-대구지방법원 2020.01.31 2018가단7648

-부산지방법원 2017.11.16 2017가단9400

-인천지방법원부천지원 2020.12.09 2020가단106758