logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 논산지원 2017.01.12 2013가단5407
공유물분할
Text

1. The part regarding Defendant N among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. Of the AT Forest land AT 34,314 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun;

A. Attached Form 2.

Reasons

1. We examine the eligibility of the lawsuit against the defendant N ex officio.

Inasmuch as a co-owner’s claim for partition becomes the Plaintiff and the other co-owners shall become the co-defendant, in case where the whole share of some co-owners is transferred to a third party during the proceeding of a lawsuit as to the partition of co-owned property, and the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawal, the part concerning the previous party who did not withdraw is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293 Decided February 18, 2016). Of the instant real estate, the ownership of Defendant N’s share in co-ownership was transferred to Defendant N’s Intervenor AS through voluntary auction on April 11, 2014 during the instant lawsuit pending on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted an application for participation in acquisition on August 11, 2016 and issued a decision of acceptance; the fact that Defendant N did not express his/her intent to withdraw in the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the part regarding Defendant N among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the fact-finding results and the whole purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 1 to 5 and Eul evidence 1 to 5, and to the defendant's co-ownership of the corresponding co-ownership shares in attached Table 1, the plaintiff and the defendants (excluding defendant N) and the defendant N N's acquiring intervenor AS own the corresponding 34,314 square meters of AT forest and field 34,314 square meters (hereinafter "the forest of this case"), and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division. Thus, the plaintiff can divide the forest of this case against the defendants by his co-ownership right.

arrow