logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2016.07.01 2016가단164
공유물분할
Text

1. Attached Form 1 2. The remaining money which remains after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate at an auction.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the Attachment No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) according to their respective shares of co-ownership listed in the Attachment No. 2.

B. The instant real estate is in the shape of a knife, and only part of the last part of the knife is abutting on the road, and the remainder is surrounded by other adjacent lands without abutting on the road.

C. Until the closing date of the instant argument, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as above, the Plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the instant real estate, may claim the partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners at any time.

However, as seen above, the agreement on partition of co-owned property with the Defendants did not lead to an agreement, so the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property as to the instant real estate has merit.

B. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition shall, in principle, be made by the method of spot partition in so far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such possibility, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered to divide the price by the so-called price partition.

The requirement that a "in-kind can not be divided" is not a physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and the use value after the division.

‘The value will be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind.'

arrow