logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.28 2016가단20152
공유물분할
Text

1. Of land listed in the attached Table;

(a)each point in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 13, 12, and 2;

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) in 1/2 shares, respectively.

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation as to the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, co-owners, as co-owners, may file a claim for partition against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of the Civil

B. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property is in principle divided in kind by the court in the case where the co-owners voluntarily choose the method, but if the co-owned property is divided by the judgment because the agreement is not reached.

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to divide the instant land into the instant land as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, in light of the following circumstances, by comprehensively taking account of the results of surveying and appraising the Korea Land Information Corporation, the results of surveying and appraising the Republic of Korea Land Information Corporation, and the overall purport of pleadings.

In other words, among the land in this case, the part 1,965 square meters of "(i)" connected in order to each point of the attached drawings Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 13, 12, and 2 are owned by the Plaintiff, and the part 1,965 square meters of "(ii)" connected in order to each point of the attached drawings Nos. 1, 11, 10, 14, 13, 12, and 1,965 square meters are divided as owned by the Defendant.

arrow