logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.10.14 2014가단37696
공유물분할 등
Text

1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds thereof, attached to the auction of Sejong Special Self-Governing City D-Governing City 3586㎡;

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, Sejong Special Self-Governing City D 3586 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to 1/3 shares, and it can be recognized that there was no partition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land until now. As such, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition may be divided in kind, in principle, or in kind, as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, or if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced if it is difficult to do so. In the payment division, the requirement that “it is not possible to divide in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include 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 the co-owner’s

In light of the following circumstances, namely, when the land of this case is divided in kind in kind, there is a high possibility that part of the divided land will not be access roads, it is deemed the most reasonable method to divide the land of this case by auction. In light of the following circumstances, it is deemed that the land of this case is the most reasonable method to divide the price by auction.

3. In conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the plaintiff and the defendants to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price added to the land of this case for auction.

arrow