공유물분할
1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1;
The Plaintiffs in relation to the sharing of real estate are the deceased F’s successors. The Defendants are the deceased F’s successors. The fact that the deceased F and the deceased G are all the children of the deceased H, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) was owned by the deceased H, and as a result, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared shares in the proportion of co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (the details of the calculation of shares in inheritance are as shown in the separate sheet No. 3H inheritance shares), and the facts that there was no divided consultation or the prohibition of division regarding each of the above real estate between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are deemed to have been led to the confession of the above Defendants under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act. There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, or it can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in the evidence No. 1 through No. 14 (including each number).
Judgment
According to the facts found as above, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant real estate, are entitled to file a claim for partition with the court pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269(1) of the Civil Act with the Defendants, other co-owners.
(b) The method of partition of co-owned property, and the method of partition of co-owned property by trial may be, in principle, divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable 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 made in kind as it is impossible to divide in kind, the price thereof may be reduced remarkably, by ordering auction;
The requirement of “undivided 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.
Supreme Court Decision 9 September 10, 2009