logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 경주지원 2017.04.25 2016가단5903
공유물분할
Text

1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who sold 261m2 to an auction at the time of racing and deducted the auction expenses from the proceeds.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant own each 1/2 shares of the real estate indicated in the text of the case (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on subdivision of the instant real estate, and there is no agreement on subdivision prohibition.

[Grounds for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendant, who is another co-owner, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made 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 reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.

In light of the fact that the instant real estate is a small-scale farmland with a size of 261 square meters, etc. regarding the instant case, it is reasonable to sell the instant real estate to auction and divide the proceeds therefrom. In light of the fact that the instant real estate is a small-scale farmland with a size of 261 square meters, it is reasonable to divide the proceeds therefrom.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the real estate of this case as stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition.

arrow