beta
Text
1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be put up for an auction by selling 1,22m2 on the Seo-gu Daejeon-gu Incheon Metropolitan City road.
Reasons
1. In fact, the instant land is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to their shares in the joint ownership injury attached hereto.
The Plaintiff presented a plan to divide the instant land into the Defendants’ joint ownership of (A) part 407.33 square meters in division as shown in the attached Form, and (b) part 814.66 square meters in size to the Defendants, but Defendant D and the Incorporated FoundationJ explicitly oppose the method of partition of co-owned property, and thus, consultation on the method of partition of co-owned property is not reached.
【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-1-2, Evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff, as a co-ownership holder of the instant land, may request the Defendants to divide the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
However, as seen above, the agreement on partition of co-owned property between the plaintiff and the defendants was not reached, so the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property as to the land in this case has merit.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the method of partition of co-owned property, the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the land in this case is in contact with L roads and M Forest, and the economic value is difficult to be deemed equivalent to the ratio of shares if the land in this case is divided in kind in the part (a) and (b). Considering the individual area or shape of the land in this case, the size of shares owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the land in this case is located over the green belt area and the Class II general residential area, it is deemed that the land in this case is difficult to fairly divide in kind according to the ratio of shares to the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and it is difficult or inappropriate to seek fair division among co-owners while maintaining the utility value of the land in this case,
Therefore, it is the most equitable and reasonable to divide the price through an auction.