공유물분할
1. The remaining money after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1;
Under the overall purport of the statement and argument by Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiffs and the defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") at the ratio of shares as stated in the separate sheet No. 2. The plaintiffs and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the division method of each real estate of this case by the closing date of argument of this case, and there is no agreement on the prohibition of division of each real estate of this case.
Judgment
According to the above facts established, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of each of the instant real property, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of each of the instant real property pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil
In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, dividing it in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the value thereof may be reduced remarkably, by ordering an auction of the jointly-owned property.
Here, the requirement includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the property in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, use value, etc. of the property jointly owned.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015). According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 1, considering the location and size of each real estate of this case, the number of co-owned share holders (18 persons) and share ratio, the value or use value of each of the real estate of this case appears to be significantly diminished if it is difficult to divide in kind or in kind, or if it is divided in kind in kind, in consideration of the location and size of each real estate of this case, the number of co-owned share holders (18 persons), and the share ratio, and the Defendants did not present any opinion on
In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are with merit.