beta
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.03.11 2015가단12074

공유물분할

Text

1. The plaintiff 2/5.00 of the remaining amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds sold by auction to Pyeongtaek-si D's 53 square meters.

Reasons

1. In light of no dispute between the parties to the claim for partition of co-owned property, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1, No. 2-1 and No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendants shared the real estate recorded in the order (hereinafter "real estate of this case") in their respective shares in the order, and it can be acknowledged that consultation regarding the method of division has not been reached between the plaintiff and the defendants, co-owner of the real estate of this case, until the closing date of argument of this case. Thus, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the defendants, other co-owners, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act,

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. The partition of co-owned property by judgment is in principle divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. The auction of the goods can be ordered only when the value of the goods is likely to be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind. In the payment division, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.

in the case of a co-owner's act of dividing in kind, "if the value of the property is likely to decrease substantially, the value of the property may decrease substantially," also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner might decrease significantly more than the value of the property before the division.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, we can see the above evidence and the fact-finding results of the court's fact-finding.