공유물분할
1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling it by auction to 26m2 in Gwangju Metropolitan City, North-gu G;
According to Gap evidence No. 6, as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and the defendants who acquired shares in the land in this case from the plaintiff during the proceeding in this case, who acquired shares in the land in this case from the plaintiff 73615/80848 as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, were sharing at the rate of 912/8088, 912/80888, 912/8088, 912/80888, 62073/808488, 6207/8088888 of the land in this case as of the date of the closing of argument in this case. The facts that the defendants failed to reach an agreement on the method of dividing the land in this case by the date of the closing of argument in this case are not clearly disputed by the defendants, and they are deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, as co-owner, may request the Defendants, who are other co-owners, to divide the land of this case.
In principle, the partition of co-owned property by the court decision on the method of partition is divided in kind. However, in full view of the fact that the size of the land in this case is less than the size of minority shareholders and the Defendants do not answer to the claims of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor seeking the payment, it seems that the land in this case is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind, and it seems the most fair and reasonable method to divide the price by ordering the auction of the co-owned property.
Therefore, after selling the instant land by auction, the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be distributed according to the respective shares ratio of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.