logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.09.08 2019가단64442
공유물분할
Text

1. In Jeju-si, the amount of money remaining after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the auction, which is put up for an auction of 1098 square meters in excess of C.

Reasons

1. In the instant orchard, the Plaintiff’s share in 2/3 of the instant orchard, and the Defendant’s share in 1/3 of the instant orchard may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the entries and videos in Gap’s evidence No. 1 to 3

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant orchard, may claim a partition of the instant orchard against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including the evidence adopted prior to the method of dividing the jointly-owned properties, the result of appraisal commission to the Jeju National Land Information Corporation branch offices of the instant court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the construction of a stone fences in the middle of the instant orchard and cultivated by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant orchard in kind, it is reasonable to deem that the instant orchard falls under a case where it is impossible to divide the instant orchard in kind or where the value might be significantly reduced due to the spot division, because it is difficult to find the method of spot division or other appropriate method of division corresponding to the share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and then, it seems fair and reasonable to divide the instant orchard according to the share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, after selling the instant orchard at auction.

3. As a result, the division of the instant orchard is reasonable to divide the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price by selling it to auction and distributing it according to the shares of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow