logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2019.06.18 2017가단3814
공유물분할
Text

1. Of 38,463 square meters in a Gunsan-si;

(a) Description 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, and 1 of the Appendix;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the share of 38,463 square meters in the U.S. O forest in Gunsan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) in the separate sheet of co-ownership shares as indicated in the “co-ownership share at the time of filing the instant lawsuit.”

B. On March 22, 2018, when the instant lawsuit was pending, Defendant F sold 263,155,967/40,824,463,680 shares of Defendant F’s succeeding Intervenor G (hereinafter “Successor”) among the shares owned by himself/herself, 93, 797, 311/40, 824, 463,680 shares, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 26, 2018.

C. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, co-ownership share of the instant land as of the date of closing argument is as stated in the “share share as of the date of closing argument of the instant case.”

The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the succeeding intervenors did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff, the defendants, and the succeeding intervenor shared the land of this case and did not reach agreement on the division. Thus, the plaintiff can file a claim for partition of co-owned land of this case against the defendants and succeeding intervenors who are other co-owners pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property is in principle divided in kind by the court in the case where the co-owners voluntarily choose the method, but if the co-owned property is divided by the judgment because the agreement is not reached.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, 10190, Jul. 22, 2004). In light of the above legal doctrine, there are health units, non-strifics, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 through 1, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 10, and Eul evidence 1 through 10.

arrow