logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.10.23 2018가단2479
공유물분할
Text

1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is put to an auction and the proceeds from the auction shall be deducted;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”), Defendant B and C acquired the said F’s share due to a compulsory auction on July 26, 1989, each of the 11/110 shares, Defendant D’s 36/110 shares, and Defendant E and F acquired the said F’s share due to a compulsory auction on July 20, 2017.

B. Meanwhile, there is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition of co-owned property as to each of the land of this case, and there was no agreement on the method of partition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B, C: Statement No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the Evidence No. 2

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, as co-owners of each of the lands of this case, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act, and also did not reach agreement as to the method of partition. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a partition claim with the court pursuant to Article 269(1)

B. As a matter of principle, division of co-owned property in kind cannot be divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, use after the division, use value, etc. of the co-owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). 2) As to this case in accordance with the above legal principle, the following circumstances revealed by health stand, Gap evidence No. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of all pleadings, namely, each land of this case is farmland improvement project for agricultural production infrastructure in accordance with the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act.

arrow