공유물분할
1. The plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, who put into an auction the K-road of Kimpo-si the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the land indicated in the order (hereinafter "the land in this case") is the land jointly owned by the deceased L, M, and defendant B with one-third shares. The plaintiff filed a registration of share transfer as to M 1/3 shares in the land in this case on or around December 26, 2017. The plaintiff died on or around July 4, 2002 and succeeded by the defendant C (3/13 shares) and his children, the wife, the defendant D, E, F, G, and Non-Party Network N (2/13 shares, respectively), and the fact that the deceased deceased on or around February 5, 2015 and the deceased on or around February 5, 2015, Defendant H (3/7 shares), the wife, and the defendant I, J 2/7 shares, and the defendants, the co-owner of the land in this case, and the plaintiff did not file a claim against the plaintiff and the Defendants, the co-owner in this case, as the public property in this case.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. Generally, the division of an article jointly owned by a trial is in principle made in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide the article in kind in kind or it is anticipated that the value of the article might decrease substantially if the division in kind might decrease substantially, an auction may be held. Here, the phrase "in the case of a unable to be divided in kind" includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, use value after the division, etc. of the article in question, not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind, and it includes cases where the value of the article to be owned independently by the co-owner might decrease substantially compared with the share value before the division.
Supreme Court Decision 200