(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.09.07 2017가단64180

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.09.07 2017가단64180

공유물분할

Text

1. The member of Ansan-si shall sell a 139m2 to the auction and shall be the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the Plaintiff 2/3 and Defendant 1/3’s share of 139m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a divided agreement on the instant real estate.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property based on the judgment on the cause of the claim is to be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the price division, the requirement that “it is not possible to divide in kind” 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, use situation of the co-owned property, and use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). Considering the fact that: (a) there is room to deem that the possibility of dividing the instant real estate in kind is not clear under the law; (b) in the case of dividing the instant real estate in kind, the Plaintiff owned the land, the land category of which is approximately 92.7 square meters; and (c) there is room to deem that there is a concern for reduction of the value in light of the respective area and land category; and (d) it is difficult for the Defendant to hold consultations on the method of dividing the instant real estate in kind or the compensation for the value by service by public notice to maintain the utility value of the instant real estate; and (b) it constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate for co-owners to fairly divide the instant real

Therefore, the division of the real estate of this case shall follow the method of payment by auction.

3. Conclusion.

참조판례

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

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.03.13 2017가단7298

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.08.25 2016가단11219

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.02.02 2019가단207396

-인천지방법원 2019.10.29 2018가단19421

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.10.11 2018가단72867