logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2014.05.13 2012가단104265
공유물분할
Text

1. The plaintiff shall sell the K forest 73,091m2 to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The instant real estate is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants according to their respective shares in the attached list.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the jointly owned property until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 3 to 5 evidence, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the instant real estate, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate, which is the co-owners under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. In the event of dividing the co-owned property by a trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in the form of money, the sale of the article may be ordered, and the price of the article may not be divided in kind. Here, the requirement does not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and the use value after the division.

The real estate of this case is owned by ten persons, including the Plaintiff, etc., (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). However, although the real estate of this case is owned by ten persons, it is difficult to find a fair method of division according to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Thus, the real estate of this case constitutes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate

Therefore, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the sale price after the instant real estate was sold to an auction, according to the share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ respective shares stated in the separate sheet.

3. In conclusion, the real estate of this case is divided by the above methods, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow