공유물분할
1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to their respective shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2.
B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division until the date of the closing of the instant argument.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff sharing the instant real estate and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate.
B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value
It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). We examine the following: (a) it seems difficult for the co-ownership right holder to draw up a reasonable division proposal to satisfy all of the multiple copies of the instant co-ownership; (b) there are Defendants who did not appear on the date of pleading of the instant case; and (c) there were Defendants who did not submit a written reply, etc. on the date of pleading of the instant case.