공유물분할
1.(1) to (31) The real estate listed in the real estate list shall be subject to the deduction of the auction cost from the proceeds of the ministry at auction.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. As to each of the instant lands, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants owned each of their respective shares as indicated in the same list “shares”.
B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on partition of co-owned property by the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.
[Ground] Defendant D, E, F, C, and G: The absence of any dispute, and the purport of the entire pleadings by Defendant B, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, Q, S, T, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC: The remaining Defendants by service by public notice
2. We examine the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim together.
A. 1) Co-owners of real estate may file a claim for partition of co-owned property, and if the agreement on the method of partition has not been reached, a claim for partition may be filed with the court (see the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of the Civil Act). 2) The Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not have any agreement on partition or prohibition of partition regarding each of the land of this case, as seen earlier, so the Plaintiffs may file a claim for partition with the court against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.
B. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property may be divided in kind with the one in which a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind with the one in which the value might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered. In the payment division, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location and size of the co-owned property, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4026, Sept. 10, 2009) considering the nature of the co-owned property and the use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da402194026, Sept. 10, 2009).