logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.11.28 2018가단2844
공유물분할
Text

1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;

Reasons

1. If the purport of the entire pleading is added to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is acknowledged to have been jointly owned by the Plaintiff 2/9 shares, the Defendant shared 7/9 shares, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant real estate. As such, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition of the instant real estate against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to

2. The partition of co-owned property based on the decision on the method of partition shall be made by the method of in-kind partition, or even if it is impossible in-kind partition, if the price is likely to decrease substantially as a result thereof, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered, and if the price of the co-owned property is to decrease substantially. In this context, the exchange value of the co-owned property shall be reduced remarkably due to in-kind partition, and the whole co-owned property shall include not only the case where the exchange value of the co-owned property is considerably reduced considerably, but also the case where the value of the part to be owned independently by the co-owner is significantly reduced considerably than the share value before the partition of co-owned property, even if it is not done fairly. Thus, even if it is possible in-kind partition, the co-owned property shall be divided not by the method of in-kind division, but also by the method of in-kind division if the share owned by each co-owner can not be divided in-kind in-kind after considering the location, size and surrounding the co-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603 delivered on January 19, 1993). In light of the above legal principle, the above evidence is examined, and the above evidence is presented.

arrow