logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2014나1635
공유물분할
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

Reasons

1. With respect to the claim of this case against the defendant for the partition of the article jointly owned by the plaintiff, the defendant filed a claim for the counterclaim of this case within the meaning of urging other methods than those asserted by the plaintiff.

However, as a form of partition lawsuit, a party’s application regarding the method of partition is not bound by the court, and the court cannot render a judgment of dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion is not reasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s claim regarding a reasonable method of partition cannot be deemed to be an independent lawsuit at each claim, and it is merely an attack and defense method.

Therefore, in a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, a counterclaim claiming only the method of partition different from the Plaintiff’s assertion is not allowed.

As such, the counterclaim of this case is unlawful.

(2) In light of the above purport, even if the Defendant submitted the claim for the counterclaim and the motion for modification of the cause of the claim to the effect that the conjunctive claim among the counterclaim of this case was modified as stated in the purport of the claim, it is merely a modification of the method of attack and defense as to the method of partition of the jointly owned property, and the lawsuit is not dismissed separately from the text of the lawsuit). 2.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared each of the instant real estate in proportion to 1/2 shares, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the method of partition of each of the instant real estate by the closing date of pleadings in the instant case. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendant for partition of each of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of one party as to the method of partition of co-owned property is difficult to divide each of the instant real estate in kind, and thus, it is necessary to divide the price through auction.

arrow