공유물분할
1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for auction from the price of each real estate stated in the separate sheet sold at auction;
1. The Plaintiff, the Defendant (appointed party, hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Claimant (hereinafter “Defendant”) shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) in proportion to shares listed in the order. As of the date of closing argument of this case, the fact that there was no special agreement prohibiting partition of co-owned property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as of the date of closing argument of this case does not exist, and the consultation on partition of co-owned property has not been made, can be acknowledged either by dispute between the parties, or by adding the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence No.
According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is one of co-owners of each of the lands of this case and can file a claim for partition against the defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act. If the agreement on the method of partition has not been reached, the plaintiff may file a claim for partition of co-owned property with the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. The plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property as seen above. Thus, the plaintiff's
2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition shall be, in principle, by the method of spot partition so far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such cause, it shall be done by auction of the co-owned property and by the method of so-called price partition.
On the other hand, the requirement that a "in-kind shall not be divided in kind" is not a physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.
Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on April 12, 2002