공유물분할
1. The remainder of money which is 57,025 square meters or more of the F Forest in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do and which remains after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of sale; and
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was originally owned by the Defendants and G (one-fifth of March 9, 1981, and one-fifth of co-ownership shares) but the Plaintiff purchased G’s co-ownership in a real estate compulsory auction procedure on November 10, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 2015, the said real estate was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants (one-five of co-ownership shares).
B. There is no division consultation or division prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the above real estate.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the facts underlying the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the above real estate, may file a claim for partition with the court against the Defendants, other co-owners pursuant to the main text of Article 268(1) and Article 269(1) of the
(b) The method of partition of co-owned property, based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, shall be, in principle, in kind, as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, or, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be made
The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da402194026 Decided September 10, 2009). The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, are the following circumstances, namely, it is difficult to find an adequate method to divide the said real estate into forest and field, with a high-level difference in its land category and status, and both the plaintiff and the defendants are to purchase shares of other co-owners or to sell their shares to other co-owners.