(영문) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.05.04 2015가단300884

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) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.05.04 2015가단300884

공유물분할

Text

1. It shall be put up for auction the AG substitute 381m2 in Seocho-si, and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be attached thereto.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the succeeding intervenors of Defendant AE (Withdrawal), and the succeeding intervenors of Defendant AE (hereinafter the above Defendants, the succeeding intervenors, and the succeeding intervenors together with the succeeding intervenors are jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and Defendant AE (hereinafter “Defendants”) in proportion to their respective shares indicated in the attached Table of co-ownership.

(Visits, Defendant C, L, M, N,O, and P, Defendant D, Q, R, T, T, U, V, and W received the shares of the network AI, Defendant F, X,Y, Z, Z, Z, AB, AB, AC, and AD, respectively, by inheritance. In addition, during the course of the lawsuit, Defendant H and I, the heir of the deceased, took over the lawsuit against the network G, and the heir of the deceased, who purchased the said shares again from Defendant AE who succeeded to the lawsuit against the Defendant E, and Defendant AE withdraws from the lawsuit against the Defendant E).

There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendants, co-owner of the land of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff can file a claim against the defendants for partition of the land of this case. 2) The plaintiff and the defendants asserted to the purport that the plaintiff cannot file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the defendants as to the land of this case, since the plaintiff and the defendants specified their location and size as to the land of this case and owned exclusively.

However, there was an agreement among co-owners of the land of this case on sectionally owned co-ownership only with the statement of No. 1.

(1) The plaintiff succeeded to the co-ownership of divided ownership.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.05.04 2015가단300877

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2017.05.02 2015가단300860

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.06.05 2016가단3430

-서울남부지방법원 2019.09.06 2017가단244720

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.05 2012가단252355