beta
Text
1. The plaintiff 1/4 and the plaintiff 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-ownership owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) and their ownership shares are Plaintiff 1/4, Defendant B1/2, and Defendant C1/4.
B. There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition of each of the instant real estate, and no agreement on the method of partition of each of the instant real estate has been reached until the closing of pleadings.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for partition of each real estate of this case jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. In principle, partition of co-owned property in kind can be divided in accordance with the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the value of the co-owner's co-owned property might be significantly reduced, the so-called price division can be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property, but in the price division, it cannot be divided in kind. It does not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's property, and it also includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owner's property in kind in consideration of the nature of the co-owned property, location, and use value after the division, etc., and it also includes cases where even if the co-owner's co-owner's share might remarkably decrease compared with the share value before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da45282, Apr. 228, 2002).