logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2019.10.17 2019가단268
공유물분할
Text

1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a right holder who owns 2/7 of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Defendant is a right holder who owns 5/7 of the pertinent real estate.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree on the division of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding that the co-owner's right to partition of co-owned property has occurred, unless the co-owner's agreement on partition has been reached, the plaintiff as co-owner may claim the division of the real estate in

B. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property according to a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value would be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the partition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). In the instant case, it is difficult for co-owners to divide the instant real estate, which is a co-owner’s sectional ownership of bonds, into the form of dividing the instant real estate in kind, among multi-family housing, and some equity right holders may present a way of dividing the shares of other equity right holders, but the Plaintiff wishes to divide the proceeds by auction and fails to reach an agreement on the sales price between both parties, while maintaining the utility value of the instant real estate.

arrow