logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.07.05 2017가단54322
공유물분할
Text

1. The indication of the attached drawing among the 1,950 square meters in Hongcheon-gun of Gangwon-do H 1,950 square meters;

(a)in sequence 1, 2, 3, 25, 24, 23, and 1 each point;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 5, 1982 with the content that Defendant B, the network I, and the J shared 1/3 shares on the 11st day of the same month due to the sale on February 5, 1982.

B. On February 16, 1997, the deceased on the part of the Defendant C, D, E, F, and G, who is the wife K and his children, and on June 30, 1998, K also died on June 30, 1998, the Defendants inherited 1/5 of the land of this case.

C. Of the instant land, J shares was seized by the State on February 16, 2016 on the grounds of tax delinquency, and the Plaintiff acquired them through public sale on May 8, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 29, 201.

Not only between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, but also between the original co-owners, there was no agreement prohibiting the division of the instant land, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach a separate agreement by the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the instant land, did not enter into an agreement on the method of partition. As such, the Plaintiff may request the Defendants, who are other co-owners of the instant land, to divide the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

As to the method of partition, the following circumstances, namely, ① there is a difference in the size of the land divided into the Plaintiff, Defendant B and Defendant C, D, E, F, and G due to the access road, and there is a difference between the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s share ratio of the instant land by additionally dividing the land of 179 square meters. However, the instant land is divided into a land category and its surrounding status, and the accessibility to the surrounding land and the subsequent form of land divided.

arrow