(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.11.25 2014가단6543

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.11.25 2014가단6543

공유물분할

Text

1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants at each ratio listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division until the date of the closing of the instant argument.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff sharing the instant real estate and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it cannot be divided in kind is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). We examine the following: (a) many co-ownership holders of the instant co-ownership rights; (b) there are many co-ownership holders of the instant case; and (c) there seems to be difficult to derive a reasonable plan to meet all of the Defendants’ materials in some cases or their residing in a foreign country; and (b) the Defendants did not appear on the date of pleading of the instant case, and written answers,

참조판례

-대법원 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2002다4580 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단72678

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.06.10 2014가단1418

-전주지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단32191

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.01.28 2014가단52867

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.08.19 2015가단51595