(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.11.29 2015가단109911

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) 청주지방법원 2016.11.29 2015가단109911

공유물분할

Text

1. The plaintiff shall sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are co-owners who own the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in proportion to 1/2 shares.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree on the partition of co-owned property of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may claim against the Defendant the division of the instant real estate jointly owned.

B. Furthermore, with respect to the method of division, it is a principle that the division of the common property by a trial shall be made in kind in the case where a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, the requirement that “it cannot be divided in kind” in the payment is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the common property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the common property.

I would like to say.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the real estate of this case is deemed to have been divided in kind into a commercial building. In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to select the method of payment by auction for the method of division of the common property jointly owned with respect to the real estate of this case, taking into account the following: (a) the health stand in this case; and (b) the real estate of this case may be deemed to have damaged its unique utility if it is divided in kind into a commercial building; and (c) the real estate of this case

3. In conclusion, it is reasonable to distribute the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and the defendant at the ratio of shares currently held by the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the auction price. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조판례

-대법원 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2002다4580 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.12.02 2016가단23040

-대구지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단21152

-부산지방법원 2020.01.15 2018가단338815

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.21 2019가단113307