공유물분할
1. The plaintiff shall sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.
1. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said share by fully paying 60,110,000 won for the proceeds of compulsory auction of real estate for one-half portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the real estate one-half share of the instant real estate in the form of one-half share may be recognized by taking account of no dispute between the parties, or the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole in the statement listed in subparagraphs A and 3.
2. The partition of co-owned property based on the judgment on the part demanding the partition of co-owned property is, in principle, impossible or in-kind division is possible in form.
Even if the price of the article jointly owned is likely to be reduced due to it, the auction is ordered pursuant to Article 269(2) of the Civil Code and the price is divided. The price of the article substantially reduced due to the in-kind division is not only when the exchange value of the article jointly owned is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division but also when the value of the article to be owned by the co-owners is significantly reduced compared to the share price before the partition of co-owned property, even if the article is not divided fairly, it includes not only the case where the share price of the article to be owned by the in-kind division is substantially reduced due to the in-kind division, but also the one can be divided in-kind.
In light of the location, area and surrounding roads, use value, price, share ratio of each co-owner's ownership and the current status of use and profit-making of the co-owner's share, if it can not be divided equally according to the share ratio of each co-owner's ownership, the co-owner's share should not be divided in kind, but the co-ownership should be divided by the price
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1194, Feb. 26, 1985). The following facts recognized by the purport of the above recognition and the entire pleading are as follows.