logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2019.04.19 2016가단301457
공유물분할
Text

1. The real estate indicated in the “Indication of Real Estate” is attached to the auction and the auction cost is deducted from the price.

Reasons

1. The facts below the basic facts are acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or a confession, or as a whole in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers).

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared each real estate indicated in the separate sheet of “Real Estate” (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) in proportion to the pertinent co-ownership shares indicated in the separate sheet of public land.

B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of each real estate of this case.

2. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of each real estate of this case, as co-owners, may file a lawsuit against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

3. If, through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, the co-owned property is divided in kind, in principle, or in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, or if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered to be paid in installments;

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

In addition, the phrase “if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind” includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by himself/herself is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the value of the share before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, Sept. 10, 2009). The entry of evidence No. 1, and the result of the request for appraisal by the U certified public appraiser office of this court, are considered as follows:

arrow