beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.01.11 2017가단307807

공유물분할

Text

1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as "real estate of this case") is a real estate jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and its share is 6/8 shares, Defendant B is 1/8 shares, and Defendant C is 1/8 shares.

B. Until now, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 4-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, as co-owners of the instant real estate, may claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by a trial, it is a principle that it is divided in kind, but if it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind, the value thereof may be reduced remarkably, the auction of the jointly-owned property may be ordered.

The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not a physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and the use value after the division.

"Where the value of a portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned independently due to the division in kind is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the value of the share before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).

Considering the following circumstances that may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1, 2, and 7, the purport of the entire pleadings, the real estate of this case is likely to be remarkably reduced in value when it is impossible to divide in kind or by dividing in kind the real estate in kind.