beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.08.30 2016나6033

공유물분할

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

In Jeju-si, an appraisal map No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 28.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial, the court is in principle dividing it in kind, and the auction can be ordered only when the value of the property is likely to be reduced remarkably if it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court is required to render a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind according to the ratio of shares of each co-owner and dividing it into several goods.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da27819 delivered on December 7, 1993). Meanwhile, since the court may divide the jointly owned property in a reasonable manner at a free discretion without being able to seek a partition of co-owned property by the plaintiff, the court does not order the payment in kind immediately for this reason on the ground that it is not appropriate for the plaintiff to divide the co-owned property in kind according to the method that the plaintiff seeks a partition of co-owned property, or that according to this method, there is a concern that the value might be reduced remarkably, and if a reasonable division in kind is possible by other methods, the court may order the division in kind

When certain requirements are met, it is permitted to divide between the co-owners by adjusting the excess or excess of their economic values in cash. When goods jointly owned by many people are divided in kind, it is allowed to divide in kind within the limit of shares of the person requesting the division and the remaining co-owners who do not want the division may also be allowed to divide in kind within the limit of shares of the person requesting the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991). B.

With respect to the division of the instant land, the Plaintiff auctioned the Defendants on February 21, 2014.