(영문) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.06.08 2016가단1887

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) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.06.08 2016가단1887

공유물분할

Text

1. The answer 1,653 square meters in the Seocho-si shall be indicated in the annexed Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 1.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entry of evidence No. 1 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property: ① the Plaintiff shares of 992/1,653m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Defendant shares the share of 661/1,653m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), and ② the fact that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of partition of the instant land.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may claim a partition of the instant land against the Defendant pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by a trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered if the value of the article is likely to be significantly reduced, and the requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" in this context is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, value of use after the division, etc.

The phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned independently by the co-owner may be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division even if the co-owner's share is divided in kind.

In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial, the court is in principle dividing it in kind. Thus, it is not permissible to order the payment of the price without permission due to the subjective and abstract circumstances, such as the fact that there is no agreement between the co-owners on the method of division, without any objective and specific deliberation on the requirements that inevitably require the payment of the price.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

Judgment

Gap evidence 4 to 10.

참조조문

-민법 제269조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2009다40219,40226 판결

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.06.18 2018나623

-대구지방법원 2020.01.31 2018가단7648

-부산지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단339074

-대구지방법원 2020.01.31 2018가단7648

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.02.11 2019가단103896