D\u0148a 08.12.2022 nadobudol pr\u00e1voplatnos\u0165 rozsudok Okresn\u00e9ho s\u00fadu Topo\u013e\u010dany v spore o nahradenie prejavu v\u00f4le ku k\u00fapnej zmluve. S\u00fad rozsudkom rozhodol v prospech n\u00e1\u0161ho klienta – \u017ealobcu, ktor\u00e9ho z\u00e1konn\u00e9 predkupn\u00e9 pr\u00e1vo bolo poru\u0161en\u00e9. O n\u00e1hrade trov konania s\u00fad rozhodol tak, \u017ee \u017ealobcovi, ktor\u00fd mal vo veci pln\u00fd \u00faspech priznal n\u00e1hradu trov konania v rozsahu 100 %.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pod\u013ea Ob\u010dianskeho z\u00e1konn\u00edka, ak sa spoluvlastn\u00edcky podiel prev\u00e1dza, maj\u00fa spoluvlastn\u00edci predkupn\u00e9 pr\u00e1vo. Ide o tzv. z\u00e1konn\u00e9 predkupn\u00e9 pr\u00e1vo podielov\u00e9ho spoluvlastn\u00edka<\/strong>. Pod\u013ea rozhodnutia Najvy\u0161\u0161ieho s\u00fadu SR sp. zn. 4 Cdo 48\/2009 spoluvlastn\u00edk sa v pr\u00edpade poru\u0161enia predkupn\u00e9ho pr\u00e1va m\u00f4\u017ee dom\u00e1ha\u0165 vo\u010di nadob\u00fadate\u013eovi, aby mu predan\u00fd spoluvlastn\u00edcky podiel pon\u00fakol za rovnak\u00fdch podmienok, za ktor\u00fdch ich k\u00fapil od povinnej osoby (p\u00f4vodn\u00e9ho vlastn\u00edka podielu).<\/p>\n\n\n\n V pr\u00edpade poru\u0161enia predkupn\u00e9ho pr\u00e1va podielov\u00e9ho spoluvlastn\u00edka na spoluvlastn\u00edcky podiel sa podielov\u00fd spoluvlastn\u00edk, ktor\u00e9ho predkupn\u00e9 pr\u00e1vo bolo poru\u0161en\u00e9 m\u00f4\u017ee dom\u00e1ha\u0165 vo\u010di nadob\u00fadate\u013eovi (tretej osobe ako singul\u00e1rnemu pr\u00e1vnemu n\u00e1stupcovi p\u00f4vodn\u00e9ho podielov\u00e9ho spoluvlastn\u00edka), aby mu nadobudnut\u00fd spoluvlastn\u00edcky podiel pon\u00fakol na k\u00fapu za rovnak\u00fdch podmienok, za ktor\u00fdch ich k\u00fapil od p\u00f4vodn\u00e9ho podielov\u00e9ho spoluvlastn\u00edka; ak nadob\u00fadate\u013e jeho v\u00fdzve nevyhovie, m\u00e1 opr\u00e1vnen\u00fd spoluvlastn\u00edk pr\u00e1vo dom\u00e1ha\u0165 sa na s\u00fade \u017ealobou vo\u010di nadob\u00fadate\u013eovi, aby bol nahraden\u00fd prejav v\u00f4le nadob\u00fadate\u013ea; \u017ealobe vyhovuj\u00face rozhodnutie s\u00fadu nahrad\u00ed v tomto pr\u00edpade ch\u00fdbaj\u00faci zmluvn\u00fd prejav nadob\u00fadate\u013ea<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Z\u00e1konn\u00e9 predkupn\u00e9 pr\u00e1vo n\u00e1\u0161ho klienta bolo poru\u0161en\u00e9 t\u00fdm, \u017ee podielov\u00fd spoluvlastn\u00edk previedol svoj spoluvlastn\u00edcky podiel na tretiu osobu bez toho, aby podiel pon\u00fakol klientovi na k\u00fapu. Ke\u010f\u017ee nadob\u00fadate\u013e v\u00fdzvu na prevedenie podielu ignoroval, museli sme v z\u00e1ujme klienta uplatni\u0165 n\u00e1rok na s\u00fade \u017ealobou, ktorej bolo vyhoven\u00e9 v celom rozsahu.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We successfully pursued the client's claims arising out of a breach of his statutory right of pre-emption as a co-owner. The client was also awarded costs.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2659,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[312,67,68,69,313,311,286,310,333,315,314,309,215],"class_list":["post-2656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-aktuality","tag-4-cdo-48-2019","tag-advokacia","tag-advokat","tag-advokatka","tag-nahradenie-prejavu-vole","tag-narok-z-porusenia-predkupneho-prava","tag-obcianske-pravo","tag-okresny-sud-topolcany","tag-podielove-spoluvlastnictvo","tag-pravna-pomoc","tag-pravne-sluzy","tag-predkupne-pravo","tag-zaloba"],"yoast_head":"\n