logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울동부지방법원 2016.12.22 2014가합13325
공유물분할등
Text

1. The plaintiff shall sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the designated parties are the children of the network F (Death on January 21, 1993, hereinafter "the deceased"). They are the successors.

B. As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the designated parties share each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) in the proportion of Plaintiff A2,535/3,718 shares, Plaintiff B3/52 shares, Defendant C, and the designated parties, 65/676 shares, and Defendant D39/572 shares.

C. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the designated parties did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate by the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) Of the instant real estate, the registration under the name of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the designated parties was not completed with respect to the building among the instant real estate owned by land and buildings. However, all the parties recognize that the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the designated parties own the building among the instant real estate at the same rate as the share ratio of the instant real estate among the instant real estate. 2/13 shares of the instant real estate owned by the designated parties A, among the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff A, in relation to the land share, among the instant real estate owned by the said designated parties, are title trusted by the designated parties around May 4, 201.

3) The standard of judgment is on the premise of the presumption of registration, and on the premise of the fact that the registration was formed under the title trust agreement, even if the title truster has the presumption capacity for such registration, the title truster may assert to the title trustee that the registration was made through the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68506, Feb. 22, 2007). The evidence cited prior to the judgment, the evidence cited prior to the judgment, and the statements stated in Gap Nos. 4 through 9, Eul No. 11 and 12, and each of the statements stated in Eul No. 1 through 4, 11, and 12,