logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.09.17 2020가단214649
공유물분할
Text

1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), U.S. Co., Ltd., and Defendants shared real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) according to their co-ownership share ratio. The fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), U.S. Co., Ltd., and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant real estate before the conclusion of pleadings is recognized by each entry of evidence No. 1 through No. 3. Thus, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as co-owner of the instant real estate may file a claim for partition of the jointly owned property against the Defendants, who are co-owners of the instant real estate pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. If, through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, the co-owned property is divided in kind, in principle, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, or if the value thereof is apprehended to decrease remarkably, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered;

Here, the requirement of "undivided in kind" includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the article in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, current use, value of use after the division.

In addition, the phrase “where the value of the division is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind” includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by himself/herself is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the share value of the ownership before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015). According to each of the descriptions and images of the evidence No. 12 and No. 5, part of the Defendant’s co-ownership does not reach the minimum amount of the share under the ordinances of the relevant local government.

arrow