logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.08 2015가단142488
공유물분할
Text

1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the price, which is sold to an auction to the 165m2m2 in Osan-si in Gyeonggi-do.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of Gap's claim for partition of co-owned property, Gap 1-3's statement and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants share the share of 165.2m2m2 in the annexed sheet in Osan-si in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter "the land in this case") at the ratio of shares, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach agreement on the method of partition of the land in this case between the plaintiff and the defendants by the date of closing argument in this case. Thus, the plaintiff, co-owner of the land in this case, as co-owner of the land in this case, may file a

2. Co-owned property partition in accordance with a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made by the method of in-kind partition, in principle, insofar as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner; however, even if it is impossible in kind or if the price might be reduced remarkably as a result of such partition, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered, and if the price might be reduced remarkably, the price shall not be divided in kind, but in the price partition shall not be physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the partition, etc. of the co-owned property.

I would like to say.

(2) As to each of the instant lands, it is practically impossible for Defendant A, B, and C to hold consultations on the method of partition of each of the instant lands because their present whereabouts cannot be known, and the remaining Defendants have expressed particular opinions on the Plaintiff’s claim for partition, based on the following circumstances, which can be seen comprehensively by comprehensively taking account of the health class and the evidence revealed as to the instant case.

arrow