공유물분할 청구의 소
1. It shall be put up for an auction a 629m2 in the city of Gyeonggi-do, and the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of sale shall be attached.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared share in their respective co-ownership shares as indicated in the separate sheet, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the division of the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
Furthermore, with regard to the method of partition, in principle, division of co-owned property by trial shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, in the payment division, the requirement that “it cannot be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide a co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value after the partition
(2) In light of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). Full view of the purport of the argument in this case, the following facts are as follows: (a) the land in this case is divided by three shares, and there is little practical use value due to the establishment of the road adjacent to E-road as the land in this case is narrow in size; (b) the share of Defendant C remains in the land divided by the above seizure; and (c) if the land is divided by kind, it is difficult to divide by kind, under law, it is difficult to secure objective rationality because the land of this case is owned by the direct line without undergoing a survey, etc.; and (d) in the case of Defendant C, it is difficult to verify the intention of division by service by public notice.