logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.05.17 2015가단33259
공유물분할
Text

1. The expenses for the auction of each real estate listed in the table 1 to 16 attached hereto, which is put to an auction, from the proceeds of the auction;

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “real estate of this case” as the same type as “real estate of this case 1 through 18”) has completed the registration of co-ownership between the original and the Defendants as shown in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. As of October 31, 2015, the market price of the instant real estate was KRW 33,678,000 in total, KRW 11,250,000, KRW 22,428,000, respectively, as of October 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A.6 Evidence 1 to 18, appraiser E’s appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Co-owned property partition according to relevant legal principles is in principle divided in kind as far as a reasonable partition according to each co-owner’s share can be made. If it is impossible to divide in kind or the value might be substantially damaged due to such division, the proceeds should be divided through an auction.

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and the use value after the division.

(1) The Supreme Court Decision 200Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). The lawsuit for partition of co-owned property is a lawsuit for the formation of co-owned property, and the co-owned property subject to co-ownership is the sole ownership through mutual exchange of shares or trade among co-owners, and the conciliation of co-owned property is resolved. As such, the court does not intend to seek partition of co-owned property and, at free discretion, according to the share ratio of co-owner depending on the co-owned relation or all the circumstances of the property which is the object of the co-owned property. If the form or

arrow