logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.18 2018가단225863
공유물분할
Text

Attached Form

3. The remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the list shall be attached Form 4.

Reasons

According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and all pleadings, real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") is co-owned by the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), the designated parties, and the Defendants shared co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet No. 4, and it is acknowledged that there was no agreement on the method of partition of the land of this case between the plaintiff, the designated parties, and the defendants by the closing date of pleadings of this case. Thus, the plaintiff may file a claim for partition against the defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. Generally, the division of an article jointly owned by a trial is in principle made in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide the article in kind in kind or if it is anticipated that the value of the article might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be held to order the payment. Here, the phrase "in the case of an article unable to be divided in kind" includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to make the division in kind in light of the nature of the article jointly owned, location, use status, and use value after the division.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the land of this case is remarkably impossible to divide in kind or to divide in kind in kind.

arrow