logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.07.10 2014가단111099
공유물분할
Text

1. The remainder of the amount calculated by subtracting the auction cost from the proceeds by selling 4,056 square meters at an auction before Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do;

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the remaining designated parties, and the Defendants shared the land stipulated in paragraph (1) of this case’s order (hereinafter “instant land”) according to their respective shares stated in the corresponding column. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff et al. acquired each of the above co-ownership of the instant land from the instant land through a public auction procedure. On behalf of the Defendants, the Plaintiff et al. requested the Defendants to divide the instant land. However, there was no dispute between the Plaintiff, the remaining designated parties, and the Defendants by the date of closing the argument.

2. Determination on both arguments

A. According to the facts established above, the Plaintiff and the remaining designated parties, co-owners of the land of this case, may claim a partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property is divided in kind, but if it is impossible in kind or if the value of the co-owned property might be reduced remarkably due to the division, the court may order the auction of the co-owned property (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). In this case, the requirement does not physically strictly interpret it, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct the partition in kind in light of the nature, location, size, situation of use, and use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property, and it includes cases where "if the value of the partition in kind might be significantly reduced if the division is made in kind" includes cases where one co-owner might remarkably decrease the ownership value of the property before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).

arrow