공유물분할
The plaintiff and the plaintiff shall sell the answer 1693m2 to auction and deduct the auction cost from the proceeds.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) at the ratio of 1/3 shares, and the fact that consultation on partition of co-owned property as to the instant land has not been formed between the aforementioned parties.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants.
2. The following circumstances revealed by the method of partition of co-owned property: (a) the land of this case, which is farmland, is narrow as the part adjacent to the road as shown in the separate sheet; (b) the part adjoining the other farmland, as wide as the part adjoining the road, can be easily access if divided into the road; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendants fail to present a specific method of partition in kind, which can be satisfied with each other, are considered difficult or inappropriate to ensure fair partition among co-owners while maintaining the utility value of the land of this case by the method of partition in kind (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). Considering the above circumstances, it is the most equitable and reasonable method to sell the land of this case to auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds thereof to co-owners according to the share sharing ratio.
3. Conclusion, the land of this case shall be put to an auction and the payment shall be made in installments as ordered by the court below.