logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.10.17 2019가단509
압류등기말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was sharing 13,488 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”) in Gongju-si, with 1/10 shares and 3/85 shares. The Defendant completed the attachment registration of C’s shares based on a tax claim against C on November 16, 2017. The Plaintiff filed a claim against C, etc. for the partition of the instant land before the instant partition with the Daejeon District Court’s official branch office 2017Kadan147. On August 9, 2018, the said court held that C, etc. share D 12,158 square meters of forest land among the instant land before the instant partition, and that C, which became final and conclusive following the Defendant’s judgment that divided the Plaintiff’s share as owned by B forest land No. 1,330 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

2. The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was owned solely due to the partition of co-owned property, and since the seizure registration of the defendant as to C's share is null and void, the defendant is obligated to cancel the seizure registration above to the plaintiff.

3. The seizure registration completed above the co-owned share of the judgment real estate does not naturally continue to exist on the whole co-owned property according to the previous share ratio and naturally focus on co-owners, who are the debtor liable for the seizure, even after becoming a co-owned property partition, unless there is an agreement by the special group (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu24868, Aug. 8, 1989). The seizure registration completed above the share of the land prior to the partition of this case, which remains above the land of this case, even after becoming a co-owned property partition. Therefore, even if the plaintiff owned the land of this case independently due to the partition of co-owned property, such circumstance alone alone is the seizure registration.

arrow