logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원해남지원 2016.09.08 2015가단4556
공유물분할
Text

1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) can be recognized as co-owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, both of whom are siblingss and siblings, and no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant real estate until the date of closing argument

(A) The Defendants, among co-inheritors, presented their opinion that they want to resolve the instant case by agreement among co-inheritors, but no agreement was reached. Therefore, the Plaintiff, one of the co-inheritors of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the remaining co-owners pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall, in principle, be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be substantially damaged due to such division, the proceeds thereof shall

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and the use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The real estate of this case is not a land but a building, and co-owners together with the Plaintiff and the Defendants reach seven persons, so it is practically impossible to find the method of spot distribution in accordance with equity.

Of course, in light of the personal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants, there is room for seeking the method of partition of co-owned property, other than spot division or price division, but it has been eight months or more after filing the lawsuit.

arrow