logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.04.18 2017가단256698
공유물분할
Text

1. The amount of money remaining after selling the 603m2 in Incheon Seo-gu I to auction and subtracting the auction cost from the price.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The 603.6 square meters in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City I (hereinafter “instant real estate”) shares 6,150 percent by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), 9/150 by the Appointed, 301/6,150 by the Appointed, 301/6,150 by the Appointed, 700/6,150 by Defendant B, 1,700/6,150 by Defendant C, 70/6,150 by Defendant C, 6,150/6,150 by 70/6,150 by Defendant D, 250/6,150 by Defendant E, 6,150 by 70/150, and 6,150 by Defendant G.

B. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed J, K and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate by the closing date of the argument in the instant case.

C. The surrounding areas, including the instant real estate, are designated as a district unit planning zone, and the relevant areas may conduct development activities on land as determined by the district unit planning zone, notwithstanding the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, as a district unit planning zone (hereinafter “L district”), and may be divided only as determined by the district unit planning zone, as it constitutes development activities, as well as matters concerning the division of land.

In principle, the development of land in the L district district district district unit plan in Incheon Metropolitan City shall develop the current state (the current state of households and lots according to the division line of the district unit plan) on a basic basis, but when applying for permission for division, the area after division shall not exceed 200 square meters.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found above, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendants shared the instant real estate, and the co-owners did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant real estate. Thus, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties based on the co-ownership share of the instant real estate against the Defendant.

arrow