(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.06.25 2013가단155422

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) 청주지방법원 2014.06.25 2013가단155422

공유물분할

Text

1. Each land listed in the separate sheet, the land listed in paragraph 1 of the annexed sheet, and the land listed in paragraph 2 of the annexed sheet.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the claim for partition of co-owned land Nos. 4-1 and 2, the facts that the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and defendant C shared each of the lands of this case with shares of 2/7 and 3/7, and facts that no agreement was reached between the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and the defendants as to the partition of co-owned property of this case. Thus, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the defendants, who are co-owners of each of the lands of this case.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. Division of an article jointly owned by the relevant legal principles may be selected at will if there is an agreement between the co-owners, but if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may order the auction of the article only when the value of the article might be significantly reduced if it is unable to divide it in kind or if it is divided in kind in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the article jointly owned by dividing it into several articles in kind in accordance with the ratio of shares of each co-owner, and each co-owner's own ownership for the article divided into two articles in kind. In this case, the method of division shall not be decided by the party at the discretion of the court, but shall be reasonably divided in accordance with the ratio of shares of co-owners

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, 10190 delivered on July 22, 2004, etc.) B.

Judgment

Plaintiff

Since the division bill presented by the succeeding intervenor and the defendant C is deemed a reasonable method of division in comprehensive consideration of the officially assessed land price and the size of each divided land, the land of this case shall be divided in kind as stipulated in paragraph (1) of this Article according to the above division plan.

3. Conclusion

참조판례

-대법원 2004. 7. 22. 선고 2004다10183, 10190 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 2015.02.26 2011다38349

-제주지방법원 2016.04.29 2014가단7802

-수원지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나24096

-창원지방법원 2021.04.08 2019나66382

-인천지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단8687