logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.11.22 2016가단200852
공유물분할
Text

1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the forest land of Pyeongtaek-gun in Gyeonggi-do at an auction;

Reasons

1. The fact that the registration of ownership shares was completed in proportion to Plaintiff 280/991, Defendant A60/991, and Defendant B51/91/91 with respect to the land of this case in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) based on the basic facts, and that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition, and that there was no agreement on the method of partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the land of this case may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings on the entry in the evidence No. 1.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as the co-owner of the co-owned property partition claim, the plaintiff as co-owner of the land in this case may claim the partition against the defendants who are other co-owners.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the method of subdivision Nos. 4 and 5 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the land in this case is the land belonging to the agricultural and forest area and the minimum partitioned area of which is 60 square meters under the ordinance of Pyeongtaek-gun, and in light of the respective share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, if the real estate in this case is divided in kind in kind, the share of Defendant B would not reach the minimum divided area. Defendant A, alone or jointly with the Plaintiff, asserted that the land in this case should be divided in kind in the manner of sharing the land in this case after being transferred the shares of Defendant B, but the Plaintiff and Defendant B asserted and opposed to the method of payment in kind through the auction, it is reasonable to sell the land in this case after being sold at auction and deducting the auction cost from the price in this case to the Plaintiff and the Defendants

3. According to the conclusion, we decide to divide the instant land as above and decide as per Disposition.

arrow