공유물분할
1. The plaintiff shall sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.
The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) according to each ratio listed in the text of paragraph (1) of this case. The fact that the agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property was not concluded does not conflict between the parties, or that the entire pleadings were acknowledged in consideration of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants, the co-owner.
The partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition shall be, in principle, divided in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. If it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof might be considerably damaged due to the division, the proceeds thereof shall be divided through auction.
(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and the use value after the division.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). The area of the instant land is 631 square meters, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B merely acquire the land of 158 square meters in case of the in-kind division according to their shares since their shares were 158/631, respectively, and thus, an independent utilization value is lower, and the Plaintiff claims a partition by auction. Accordingly, Defendant B did not appear at this court without being present at this court without submitting a duplicate of the complaint and a written response even after being served with the notice of the date of pleading, and without stating any opinion on the method of subdivision. Defendant C did not present any particular use of the instant land after its own house, while Defendant C did not have any specific use place as of the land attached thereto.