(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.02.06 2017가단2997

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) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.02.06 2017가단2997

공유물분할

Text

1. The remaining amount after the sale price is deducted from the auction cost, which is put up for auction 240.1 square meter in the East Sea as at the same time.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the share of 240.1 square meter and 240 square meter (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the proportion of co-ownership indicated in the attached list in the East Sea. The facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate by the closing date of the argument in the instant case can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs A and 5.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff has the right to claim a partition of co-owned property against the defendant based on his co-ownership.

B. Furthermore, as to the method of partition, it is a principle that the partition of co-owned property by a trial is divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. The requirement that the auction of the goods can be ordered only when the value of the goods might be reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, and that the payment can not be divided in kind, but it is not physically strict interpretation. It includes the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division.

I would like to say.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the admitted evidence, the right to collateral security is established for the shares of co-owners of the instant real estate, and even if the Nran shop located in M at the time of the East Sea owned by co-owners is used as a parking lot for the building, a separate right to site ownership is not registered. The instant real estate constitutes a case where it is impossible to divide it in kind in kind or the value of the instant real estate might be significantly reduced due to the spot division. Thus, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate by the method of auction

3. Conclusion, this case.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단72678

-청주지방법원제천지원 2020.12.23 2020가단21349

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.05.07 2018가단58759

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.04.12 2016가단6431

-청주지방법원충주지원 2016.11.30 2015가단23188