(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.01.24 2016가단1907

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) 울산지방법원 2017.01.24 2016가단1907

공유물분할

Text

1. The remainder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the cost of the auction from the proceeds of the auction;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff as 12/13 shares and 1/13 shares.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree on the method of dividing the instant real estate until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible or possible in-kind division is possible in the form, if the price might be reduced remarkably, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered and the price shall be divided. However, in the price division, the requirement that "it may not be divided in-kind" shall not be physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in-kind division in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, and use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant real estate in kind, based on the following factors: (a) the health stand in this case; (b) the Plaintiff appears difficult to reach an agreement between the parties on the proposed spot distribution; and (c) the location, status, availability of contribution to the instant real estate; and (d) the possibility of future use of the instant real estate.

Therefore, the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price that the instant real estate was sold to an auction shall be 12/13 and 13.

참조조문

-민법 제269조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2002다4580 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.04.06 2017가단101471

-대구지방법원김천지원 2019.04.16 2018가단5788

-창원지방법원 2018.10.10 2018가단2748

-부산지방법원 2020.01.15 2018가단338815