logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2016.08.11 2013가단13513
공유물분할
Text

1. The auction cost shall be levied on the amount of a 2294m2 and the amount of a 1240m2 in Gyeyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, for an auction.

Reasons

1. On November 10, 1948, non-party N,O, P, Q, and R completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the 1/5 shares of non-party N,O, P, Q, and R on the ground of the sale on November 10, 1948.

The Plaintiff acquired 1/5 shares of each of the instant lands from theO through Nonparty S and T, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

N’s heir is either the Defendant listed in Nos. 1 through 10 [Attachment 1] (the appointed party; hereinafter the designated party, both the Defendants and the designated parties, who are not the appointed parties, are appointed parties) or the designated parties, and P’s inheritors are the Defendants or designated parties listed in Attached Table 11 through 28, and Q’s inheritors are the Defendants or designated parties listed in Attached Table 29, 30, 31, and 32, and R’s successors are the Defendants or designated parties, and R’s successors are the Defendants listed in Attached Table 33 through 37.

The co-ownership shares of each of the above Defendants and the designated parties with respect to each of the instant land in proportion to their shares shall be as specified in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 1-1-2, and Gap evidence 3-1 through Gap evidence 7, response to this court's order to submit tax information to the Yang-si, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the other hand, Defendant J, Defendant I, B, D, and C are seeking the division of land in kind, while the Plaintiff seeking the division by auction of each land of this case.

The following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1 to Eul evidence 9-4, which are acknowledged as having comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the party seeking spot partition fails to present a draft partition, the parties to the lawsuit, the plaintiff, the defendant (appointed party) and the defendants, and the designated parties did not reach an agreement on spot partition through the adjustment several times, and the co-owners of each land of this case are many and interested parties.

arrow