(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.23 2014가합14838

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) 인천지방법원 2015.06.23 2014가합14838

배당이의

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. The parties concerned jointly share the 1/2 shares of Defendant B and Yeonsu-gu E, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, and the 4th floor neighborhood living facilities and housing buildings of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the ground. Defendant C is a person who leased the 3th floor of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

B. On April 22, 2013, Defendant B auctioned the instant real property against the Plaintiff and divided the price by one-half. The Plaintiff filed an application for conciliation with Defendant B to pay KRW 35,418,01 of the proceeds of the public property during the period, and delay damages therefor (Seoul District Court 2013Ma2099). However, the conciliation was not completed, and the conciliation was conducted due to the failure to reach an agreement. (2) On November 28, 2013, the Defendant B revoked the claim for the payment of the proceeds of public property among the previous purport of the claim and sought only the partition of co-owned property. On January 23, 2014, the purport of the claim was reduced as follows. The conciliation was established between Defendant B and the Plaintiff’s legal representative and the Plaintiff’s legal representative under the Incheon District Court Decision 408, Jan. 23, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant protocol of mediation”). 1. The real estate of this case is placed at auction and the remaining amount after deducting auction expenses from the price is distributed to the plaintiff and defendant B at the ratio of 1/2.

2. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation on the ground that the instant protocol of conciliation becomes null and void (Seoulcheon District Court 2014Dadan120). However, the said court rejected the lawsuit for quasi-adjudication on February 3, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for quasi-adjudication was subject to the exclusion period. C. Defendant B’s application for compulsory sale of real estate and preparation of a distribution schedule for partition of co-owned property is based on the instant protocol of conciliation.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.02.03 2014재가단120

-인천지방법원 2016.09.22 2016재나71

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.03.29 2017재가단1008

-인천지방법원 2018.03.30 2017가합151

-인천지방법원 2019.10.15 2018재가합26