공유물분할
1. [Attachment 1] The real estate listed in the list shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff and the defendants shared the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] list (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") in proportion to co-ownership shares in the attached Form 2, and it can be acknowledged that there was no agreement as to the method of partition of the apartment of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants by the date of closing argument of this case. Thus, the plaintiff can file a co-ownership of co-owned property against the defendants.
2. Regarding the method of partition of co-owned property, public property shall, in principle, be divided in kind, but if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, the court may order auction of things;
(Article 269(2) of the Civil Code. Here, the requirement that "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 article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, value of use after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.
(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the apartment of this case was difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind, and that the apartment of this case was sold at auction and the auction expenses were deducted from the proceeds thereof. In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the apartment of this case was divided in kind in apartment, and that the real estate of this case was impossible or difficult to divide it into apartment in kind, and that the defendants did not present any opinion as to the partition of co-owned property even though they were served with the duplicate of the complaint of this case and did not appear on the date for pleading of this case, and that the agreement as to partition of co-owned property was not reached. Thus, the apartment of this case constitutes an apartment of this case where it was difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind.