공유물분할
1. The plaintiff shall sell the E Forest land of 4,575 square meters at auction in the following cities: the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B, F, and G completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 15, 1985 as to shares of 1/3 of the forest of this case.
B. On March 5, 2003, H completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to G’s shares (1/3) out of the instant forest land, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to H’s shares (1/3) out of the instant forest land on November 13, 2014.
C. F The F died on December 2, 1995, and his heir died, and there is I (the spouse died on September 6, 2009), Defendant C and D, who are children.
(Defendant C and D received 1/6 shares in the forest of this case).
The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree not to divide the forest land of this case, and there was no agreement regarding the method of dividing the forest land of this case by the closing date of pleadings of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may claim the partition of the forest of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. The partition of co-owned property at a trial is, in principle, based on the method of in-kind division as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible or possible in-kind form, if the price is likely to decrease substantially due to the auction of the co-owned property, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price. In the price division, "it cannot be divided in-kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in-kind division in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, and use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).