Even after the partition of co-owned property, the attachment of share against one co-owner is effective, it shall not be

Even after a co-owned real estate is divided in kind, the effect of the seizure of shares to one co-owner shall continue to exist in accordance with the previous ratio of shares on each divided real estate.

Article 262 of the Civil Act provides Joint Ownership of Goods

Seoul Central District Court 2018Kadan30878 Claim for Cancellation of Mortgage, etc.

AA

Republic of Korea outside 5

October 25, 2018

January 17, 2019

1. As to the Plaintiff’s 2,958 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-do 000, Defendant Aa performed the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment that was completed under the receipt No. 000 on July 24, 2014.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Aa is borne by the above Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is borne by each Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition No. 1 and the Plaintiff, with respect to the land of this case, 2,958 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-do 000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”), Defendant BB completed on January 10, 2014 with the Suwon District Court’s receipt No. 0000, and the attachment registration completed on January 4, 2018 with the receipt No. 0000, and Defendant CC completed on July 25, 2014 with the same registry office; Defendant CC’s provisional attachment registration completed on March 25, 2015 with the receipt No. 0000, and Defendant e completed on November 18, 2015 with the same registry office’s receipt of the registration No. 0000, and Defendant e’s provisional attachment registration completed on July 10, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff and GG purchased from HH the remaining 2,959 square meters, excluding 469 square meters, which were used as a road site, among the land prior to the instant subdivision, of Pyeongtaek-si 00,000 square meters (hereinafter “the land prior to the instant subdivision”).

B. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff and GGG, who paid the sales price, received on December 2, 2013 the transfer registration of co-ownership shares in shares, 1,479.5 shares of each of 3,428 on the land before the instant subdivision.

C. Since then, the registration of the right to collateral security and the seizure or provisional seizure of the remainder of the Defendants stated in the Disposition No. 1 as to the third share of the land before the instant partition was completed.

D. Meanwhile, in the case where the Plaintiff and GGG (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a partition of co-owned property against HG against the Plaintiff, the Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan000, which sought a partition of co-owned property as to the instant land before the instant partition, the instant land, which belongs to the part purchased by the Plaintiff, etc. through the instant purchase and sale, is owned by the Plaintiff, etc., and the remainder of the land is to be divided into the sole ownership of HH., the conciliation decision was rendered on December 15, 2017, which became final and conclusive on January 6, 2018. Accordingly, the instant land before the instant partition became final and conclusive on March 7, 2018, divided into KRW 470,000,000,000,000 for the instant land and KRW 34284,435,000,000 for each of the instant land on March 30, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 12 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim against Defendant BB

(a) Description of the claim;

Since the land in this case was owned by only the plaintiff et al. due to partition of co-owned property, the registration of the right to collateral security stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1, which was established with respect to the shares of HH, is null and void, and defendant BB has the obligation to cancel

(b) Applicable provisions;

Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. As to claims against the remaining Defendants

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion of claim

Since the land in this case was owned by only the plaintiff et al. due to partition of co-owned property, each of the registrations of seizure and provisional seizure stated in the purport of the claim as to the shares of HH (hereinafter "registration of each of the seizure or provisional seizure in this case") shall be null and void, and the remaining defendants have the obligation to cancel the registration of each of the seizure or provisional seizure in this case to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

The attachment or provisional attachment established on the shares of the co-owners of co-owned real estate shall, in principle, continue to exist in accordance with the previous shares ratio on each divided real estate, even after the co-owned real estate was divided in kind. Thus, even if the land prior to the division was divided in kind with the land of this case and 000 land, and the land of this case was owned only by the plaintiff et al., such circumstance alone alone does not make the registration of each attachment or provisional attachment on the land of this case null and void. Accordingly, from the contrary point of view, the claim of this case against the remaining defendants of the plaintiff against the plaintiff is groundless.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the above defendants' assertion that the registration of seizure or provisional seizure on the land of this case would cause pain to the plaintiff and damage to the plaintiff, and that there is no interest to the above defendants, and thus constitutes an abuse of rights. However, even if all the evidence presented during the argument of this case are examined, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant BB shall be accepted, and the remaining claims against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.