공유물분할
1. The amount remaining after selling 17184 square meters of D forest land at racing-si by auction shall be the remainder after deducting the auction expenses from the price.
The Plaintiff shared 150/180 shares in D forest land at the time of the commencement of the right to partition of co-owned property (hereinafter “instant land”) and the Defendants shared 15/180 shares, respectively. The fact that the agreement on the division of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not reached by the date of the closing of pleadings is either nonexistent between the parties, or that the agreement on the division of the instant land was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries in No. 1
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may file a claim against the Defendants, the remaining co-owners, for the partition of land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act
In a lawsuit for the partition of co-owned property, the court shall order the division according to the share ratio in a reasonable way by comprehensively taking into account the co-ownership relation or all the circumstances of the property which is the object thereof, and in principle, the share ratio refers to the share ratio of the value according to the share ratio. In a case where the shape, location, situation of use or economic value of the object to be partitioned is not equal, the court shall order the division by adjusting the economic value
In addition, the method of partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be, in principle, divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the price division, the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use status, and use value after the division.
Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Delivered on April 12, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 193 delivered on January 19, 1993.