logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단115514
공유물분할
Text

1. The remaining amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the auction from the auction shall be attached to the 136m2m2 in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff shared 62/80 of the pertinent site and 9/80 shares, respectively, with respect to D-do 136 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”), and the Defendants shared 62/80 shares. The instant site and 22.1 square meters of single-story stores owned by the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant store”) are located on both the instant land and Macheon-si E.

Until the closing date of the instant case, the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant site.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including separate numbers, if there are separate numbers), and the facts of recognition as above are based on the whole purport of pleading, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the site of this case, may file a claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners, for the division of the site of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as the price can be reasonably divided according to each co-owner's share. However, even if it is impossible or possible in in-kind, if the price can considerably decline due to the auction of the co-owned property, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property. In the case of payment, "it cannot be divided in-kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in-kind in-kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002; 9Da6746, Jun. 11, 199). Since the above ground of this case is located in the building site owned by the defendant C, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the land of this case.

arrow