(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.10.31 2018나549 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2018.10.31 2018나549

공유물분할

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance is modified in accordance with the application for intervention by this court as follows.

Attached Form

A list of real estate;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties share each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in proportion to their co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet.

[Appointed B owned the instant real estate at a ratio of 3/9 shares, but on December 5, 2017, each of the 1/9 shares was donated to the Defendant (Appointed Party) on December 11, 2017, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on December 11, 2017; hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”).

There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant real estate, and no agreement on the method of partition has been reached so far.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 4, 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the above facts finding as to the causes of partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant real property, and since there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to the method of partition of the instant real property, the Plaintiff may seek a partition of co-owned property as to the instant real property pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act against the Defendants. 2) The Defendants’ assertion (1) as to each of the instant real property in the name of 1, the ownership transfer registration as to each of the instant real property was completed in the name of 2/9 shares, and the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of J after the ownership transfer registration was completed, is null and void due to the false conspiracy between I and J. The Plaintiff purchased the said shares in the discretionary auction procedure based on the right to collateral security with the knowledge that the Plaintiff is a false collateral security. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot acquire ownership as to the said shares in the instant real

(2) (2) The instant real estate is located.

참조조문

-민법 제268조

-민법 제269조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.01.17 2015가단25336

-창원지방법원진주지원 2017.05.25 2016가단2341

-대전지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단27934

-대구지방법원 2017.12.27 2017가단20156

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.01.14 2014가단31693