logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.06.27 2012가단42887
공유물분할
Text

1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the forest E in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, by selling it to an auction.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 1971, the instant real estate was a part of 1071 square meters of forest land E in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “the land before subdivision”), and registration of preservation of ownership was completed pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, hereinafter “Special Measures”).

This was the reference of the plaintiffs who actually owned the land before the division and the defendant's assistance net F was the result of the defendant's donation to the plaintiff.

B. Since the F died on August 19, 1986, the land before the subdivision was divided into the size of 5801 square meters of forest E in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun on October 8, 1986 and the size of 4910 square meters of G forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do (hereinafter “G forest”). On the same day, the transfer registration of ownership was completed on October 7, 1986 for each 1/4 shares of G forest owned by the Plaintiff A, B, and the Defendant’s attached, for each 1/4 shares of G forest on the same day.

C. On November 9, 1991, the forest E- 5801 square meters of forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun was divided into 85 square meters of I forest land and this case’s real estate. On November 17, 1991, H’s share in the instant real estate was completed with respect to H’s share in the instant real estate after H died on September 16, 1992.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant on the division of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the real estate in this case is presumed jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant, and since the agreement on division was not concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the plaintiffs can file a claim for partition of the real estate in this case pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 (1) of the Civil Code, barring special circumstances.

Shed, the real estate of this case is owned by a clan, which is a common set of J, the defendant's senior father, or impliedly between the plaintiffs and H.

arrow