logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.03.21 2018나50621
공유물분할
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A survey on the cadastral status in attached Table 1 among the lands listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the successors of Defendant G are sharing each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as follows:

Co-owners’ shares Plaintiff A/2 Plaintiff C 660/6390 Defendant D 297/6390 Defendant A297/6390 Defendant G (297/6390) land: 1314/6390 land: J(2) land, the number of successors to Defendant G, 106.18/6390: 247.82/6390

B. At present, the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the successors of Defendant G did not reach a full agreement on the method of dividing each of the above lands.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap 1-3 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the instant land, may claim the partition of the instant land against the Defendants and the successors of Defendant G, who are other co-owners, as co-owners of the instant land.

B. Division method 1) Division of the jointly-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the jointly-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, 10190, Jul. 22, 2004). In addition to the evidence mentioned above and the evidence No. 4, considering the current status and form of the land in this case, the developments leading up to the acquisition of the share of the land by the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the defendant G’s successor, and the opinion on the method of partition on both sides, it is reasonable to divide the above land in kind as prescribed in paragraph (1)

3. The judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded otherwise, is unfair, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

arrow