(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2017.06.15 2016가단22201

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) 대전지방법원공주지원 2017.06.15 2016가단22201

공유물분할

Text

1. As to the portion of 1/26 shares from Defendant B and C among the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendants, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally owned by F. The Plaintiff and G shared 6/26 shares, respectively, due to the inheritance on February 20, 1990 due to the death of the Plaintiff and G, Defendant B, and C shared 1/26 shares, Defendant D, E, and H shared 4/26 shares, respectively.

(Transfer of Ownership due to Property Inheritance has been registered on December 2, 2008). (b)

The Plaintiff was donated by G and H on October 6, 2010 a total of 10/26 shares of the instant real estate.

C. As of March 30, 2017, the current market price of the instant real estate is KRW 224,761,000.

Meanwhile, the real estate listed in paragraphs 1, 4 and 2 and 3 among the instant real estate are located far from different areas, and the real estate listed in paragraphs 1, 4 and 2 and 3 among the instant real estate are not adjacent to each other.

The real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 4 among the real estate in this case is currently being used as part of the Icping site, and is actually a blind spot that can enter a road through Icping site.

Among the real estate of this case, there is a building of a slive structure and slive roof on the ground of the real estate listed in Paragraph 2.

There is no special agreement prohibiting division between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant real estate, and there was no agreement on the method of division until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above basic facts, the consultation on the method of partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the instant real estate, is deemed impossible.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is a co-owner of the instant real estate and may file a claim for the division against the Defendants.

3. Lawsuit of partition of co-owned property is formed, and the exchange or sale of shares among co-owners is conducted; and

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.02.04 2013가단220835

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.05.17 2018가단225912

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.12.18 2016가단47169

-부산지방법원동부지원 2014.12.18 2013가합5076

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.14 2014가합565533