logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.14 2017가단18008
공유물분할
Text

1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

Reasons

Attached Form

The real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned by the Plaintiff in proportion to 2/11 shares, 2/11 shares, 11 shares, 3/11 shares, and 3/11 shares, and the fact that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate, or that there is no agreement between the parties, or that it is recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence No. 1.

Co-owners of real estate may claim a partition of co-owned property against other co-owners at any time (Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). As seen above, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the real estate of this case, which is jointly owned between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the real estate of this case, may claim

In addition, in the case of dividing the article jointly owned by the trial, it is a principle of dividing it in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the value may be reduced remarkably, the auction of the article jointly owned can be ordered.

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

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed on the division of the instant real estate in kind or by the Plaintiff’s purchase of shares of the Defendants, and the instant real estate, which constitutes one parcel of land as farmland, are divided in kind, under the following circumstances acknowledged earlier and based on the evidence cited earlier. (See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015)

arrow