logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2016.02.05 2014가단34234
공유물분할
Text

1. Attached Real Estate List 1: Co-ownership of each of the plaintiffs' 1/2 shares, and Attached Real Estate List 2.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Eight persons, such as C, D, E, F, G, and H (the change of a registered titleholder on the ground of an error on February 20, 2006, as indicated I), J, K, and K, etc., are each 1/8 shares of land out of 17,902 square meters of Lincheon-si L (hereinafter “instant land”) on October 19, 1946.

3. 10. Completion of each registration of ownership transfer by reason of sale.

B. The plaintiff B and M shall purchase on January 5, 2006 the entire equity in K and the same year.

4.7. Each 1/16. The registration of the transfer of ownership is completed, and Plaintiff A purchased the above shares of M on August 10, 201 and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on September 5, 201.

C. Both C, D, E, F, G, H, and J have died and each of the shares listed in the said Schedule has been inherited to the Defendants as in the attached inheritance shares sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the agreement on the method of subdivision was not reached between the plaintiffs and the defendants sharing the land in this case, some of the co-owners, barring special circumstances, may file a claim against the defendants, who are the remaining co-owners, for the division of the real estate in this case. The method of subdivision is reasonable to share the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 in accordance with the plaintiffs' share ratio and to share the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 in accordance with the defendants' inheritance share ratio when comprehensively considering all the circumstances indicated in the argument in this case, such as the reasons why the plaintiffs and the defendants shared the land in this case, the location, form

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim for partition of co-owned property is accepted, and it is divided as ordered.

arrow