beta
Text
Attached Form
(1) A real estate listed in the list is attached to the auction and remains after the proceeds of the auction are excluded from the auction.
Reasons
1. Claim for partition of co-owned property
A. There is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") is jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant in 1/2 shares. The real estate of this case did not reach an agreement as to the partition of co-owned property of this case until the closing date of the argument of this case, and there is no agreement prohibiting partition.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendant, who is another co-owner, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. In principle, a method of partition of co-owned property by a wrong judgment is to be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be significantly reduced if it is made in kind, an auction may be ordered to divide it. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide it in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.
With respect to the instant case, in order to divide the instant real estate in kind, there should be objective data to compute the location and economic value of the instant real estate, such as the shape thereof and surrounding land and road conditions. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not submit data to calculate the above value, and the method of division in kind is reasonable.