logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.12.05 2018가단508699
공유물분할
Text

1. Auction of the real estate listed in the separate sheet and the remaining money after deducting the costs of the auction from the proceeds of sale shall be attached.

Reasons

1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendants shared real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") in the same proportion as co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet. The real estate of this case is an acute slope except for a lower part of a forest as a fluoral forest, and that co-owners did not reach an agreement on the division of the real estate of this case.

2. Defendant B asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, inasmuch as there was no agreement on the division of the instant real estate before the instant lawsuit was filed.

Article 269 of the Civil Code provides that when the agreement on the method of division does not lead to an agreement on the method of division, co-owners may request the court to divide it.

The above provision provides that the consultation on the method of partition of co-owned property did not lead to an agreement on the method of partition, but it does not require prior consultation.

On the other hand, as seen above, co-owners did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the real estate of this case.

Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Defendant C asserts that, since there was a special agreement between co-owners on non-division of co-ownership before the Plaintiff acquired ownership, he cannot accept the claim for non-division of co-ownership.

In this regard, there is no evidence to prove that there was the above special agreement, and there was such special agreement.

Even if there is no special agreement on the non-division of common property among the joint owners, it cannot be viewed that the agreement affects the plaintiff.

Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.

4. In a case of dividing an article jointly owned by a trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is apprehended to reduce the value thereof in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered to be made in installments;

Here, ‘the kind of goods can not be divided'.

arrow