(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.11.28 2017나51201

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 2018.11.28 2017나51201

공유물분할

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment in this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff and the defendant shared the real estate of this case, and there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the method of dividing the real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff can file a co-owned property partition claim against the defendant as to the real estate of this case.

B. The partition of co-owned property in accordance with the legal principles regarding the method of partition 1 shall be, in principle, based on the method of in-kind partition as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible or possible in-kind form, if the price is likely to decrease substantially due to the auction of the co-owned property, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price, but it shall not be made in-kind. It shall not be physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in-kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and use value after the partition.

In addition, the phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" also includes a co-owner's cases where the value of the portion to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

Therefore, it is possible to divide in kind formally.

Even if the location, area, and surrounding road conditions, use value, price, share ratio of each co-owner, and the current status of use and profit-making of the co-owner's property can not be divided equally according to the share ratio of ownership of each co-owner.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.10.25 2016가단2300

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2018.09.04 2018가단216

-인천지방법원 2019.07.04 2018가단273607

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.01 2015가단123979

-인천지방법원 2019.10.10 2018가단246759