beta
Text
1.(a)
Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant E receive KRW 6,781,506 from the Plaintiff at the same time.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant share the instant land in their share ratio as follows:
Co-owners’ share ratio A 544/8327 Defendant B 506/8327 Defendant C 506/8327 Defendant D 1265/8327 Defendant E 506/8327
B. The instant land is a form that has the long range of assessment, as shown in the attached drawing, and is used as farmland.
C. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff and Defendant D wished to sell or divide the instant land by auction or division, or to compensate the Plaintiff for the value of Defendant D’s share to be transferred, and Defendant C wanted to divide by auction.
The market price as of June 11, 2015 for the entire land of this case is KRW 111,60,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, result of a request for market price appraisal of appraiser G, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Co-owners who have created the right to claim partition of co-owned property may claim a partition of the co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268 (1) of the Civil Act), and if the consultation as to the method of partition of the co-owned property has not been reached, co-owners may request a court for partition, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof might be reduced remarkably due to such partition, the court may order
(Article 269 of the Civil Act) In accordance with Article 269 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition of the instant land against the Defendants,
3. Method of partition.
A. Division of the relevant legal doctrine-based co-ownership can be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-ownership is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind, the court may issue an order for the auction of the goods only when the value thereof is likely to decrease substantially. Thus, the court shall, barring the above circumstances, order the auction of the goods.