(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.09.06 2019가단1339

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.09.06 2019가단1339

공유물분할

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The Plaintiff filed a claim for partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case against the Defendant on the premise that each of the lands stated in the purport of the claim with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) is co-owned in 1/2 shares.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Lawsuit for partition of co-litigation is an essential co-litigation in which a co-owner who claims partition becomes the plaintiff and all other co-owners shall be the co-defendant.

In full view of Gap 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and 2-2's fact-finding results and the whole purport of the arguments against Eul, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares out of the land of this case on March 16, 2006, and the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares out of the land of this case was completed on January 29, 1934 under the name of "B" with the domicile of "B" on February 12, 1934 for 1/2 shares out of the land of this case on the ground of sale on January 29, 1934. As a result of the inquiry into the comprehensive public father system of real estate, Eul was not searched, but searched from "B" (hereinafter referred to as "G clan"), the representative of the clan Eul is separate from the clan and the representative of the clan B is "H", and it is recognized that the plaintiff's land category was not a duplicate of the complaint of this case from among the plaintiff's land of this case.

According to the above facts, only the entry in the real estate register alone is insufficient to view “BJ” recorded in the real estate register as the owner of the land of this case as the same clan as that of the Class B (representative H) land as the other party to the claim for partition of co-owned property of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize this differently. Thus, the claim for partition of co-owned property of this case is an essential co-litigation, so it shall be deemed that the

유사 판례

-전주지방법원군산지원 2015.09.03 2015가합10389

-대전지방법원 2019.07.24 2018가합106375

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2017.07.13 2016가합384

-광주고등법원(전주) 2016.07.21 2015나101745

-수원지방법원 2020.01.08 2019가단522051