(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나6011 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나6011

공유물분할

Text

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

The real estate listed in attached Tables 2 and 3 shall be alone of the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Claim for partition of co-owned property

A. 1) The instant real estate is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the same proportion as stated in the purport of the claim. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff, based on his co-ownership right, has the right to partition of co-owned property against the Defendants.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. Division of a co-owner's jointly-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the jointly-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall, in principle, divide it in kind. The court may order the auction of the goods only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value of the property is significantly reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court shall render a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind in proportion to the shares of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be reasonable division according to the share ratio of co-owner at the court's discretion, rather than by the method requested by the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 197). b.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant case, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate in kind as indicated in the Disposition.

① Ten parcels of the instant real estate.

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 9. 9. 선고 97다18219 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.09.05 2017가단20925

-서울남부지방법원 2020.06.18 2019나52094

-인천지방법원부천지원 2020.05.15 2018가단123248

-청주지방법원영동지원 2020.08.14 2018가단4641

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.01.15 2013가단12691