logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.10.10 2018가단2748
특정공유지분의분할
Text

1. The plaintiff shall sell the 2,873m2 to auction the answer 2,873m2 and the remainder which remains after deducting the auction cost from the price is deducted.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At present, the Plaintiff shares 10/23, Defendant B-1/23, Defendant C-A/23, Defendant D-A/23, and Defendant E-A/23 in proportion to 4/23, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, and there is no possibility to communicate with Defendant B, D, etc., and all co-owners are unable to consult on the method of division.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff sharing the instant real estate and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate.

B. As a matter of principle, division of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind so that each co-owner can make a rational partition according to his/her share. However, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It does not include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the partition, etc. of co-owned property.

As seen earlier, since the Plaintiff and the Defendants cannot reach an agreement on the basic method of the spot-sale, it constitutes a situation where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant real estate in kind.

Therefore, it would be the most equitable and reasonable way to sell the instant real estate to auction and distribute the price according to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

3. In conclusion, the real estate of this case is put to an auction and the remainder, excluding auction costs, shall be at the respective share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.

arrow