logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.20 2019가단5026000
공유물분할
Text

1. The remainder of the money calculated by deducting the auction cost from the price by selling the land of 3,663 square meters which is the F prior to the inn city.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the 3,663 square meters of the F prior to the Innju City (hereinafter “instant land”) according to their shares by co-owners indicated in the order.

B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the land of this case until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the claim

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff can file a partition of co-owned property on the land of this case against the defendant pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. The partition of co-owned property based on the method and contents judgment shall be, in principle, by the method of in-kind division, in so far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the price is likely to decrease substantially, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered to divide the price, and if it is possible to divide the price in kind, it shall not be physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value, etc. of the co-owned property.

(1) The land of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind the land of this case into articles to satisfy all the interests of the parties, taking into account the health stand, the facts acknowledged earlier, the characteristics of the land of this case, and the use status of the land of this case as seen earlier, etc.

Therefore, it is fair and reasonable to divide the price after selling the instant land by auction.

3. According to the conclusion, this case.

arrow