(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.04.10 2018가단16497

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) 광주지방법원 2019.04.10 2018가단16497

공유물분할

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Real estate listed in the attached list 1 was jointly owned by Defendant B 89/403 shares, G and the other Defendants’ respective 62.8/403 shares, and 2,3 real estate listed in the above list with each of G and Defendant C, D, E, and F shared 1/5 shares, and the Plaintiff purchased G’s shares and completed the registration of transfer on July 6, 2018.

B. On January 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 27, 2018, and sent a notice to the effect that it would cause contact to the Defendants since it was intended to reach a co-owned property partition consultation against the Defendants, which was pending in the lawsuit.

【Court of Second Instance】 Each entry of Gap's evidence 1 and 3 (including paper numbers)

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff sought co-owned property partition in the manner of selling each of the above real estate at auction and distributing the price according to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.

B. The co-owners may file a claim for the division with the court when the agreement on the method of the division is not reached among the co-owners, and the court, in principle, may divide in kind and divide in kind, if it is not possible to divide in kind or the value of the division is likely to be significantly reduced due to the division, and the auction may be ordered to distribute the price. The fact that the agreement was not reached at this time was actually reached between the co-owners, but the agreement was not reached, as well as where some of the co-owners do not intend to respond to the agreement.

It includes cases where it is impossible to hold an agreement from the beginning, such as in the absence or absence.

He returned to the instant case, the Plaintiff had been actually consulted with the Defendants.

No data exists regarding the fact that some of the defendants clearly made that they did not intend to respond to the consultation, and even if the family consultation was not concluded, the plaintiff is unable to divide each of the above real estate in kind or to divide it into a division.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.05.15 2018가단102759

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.10.16 2014가단16086

-전주지방법원 2019.07.11 2017가합4118

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.11.27 2012가단14176

-수원지방법원 2016.01.20 2014가단536963