beta
Text
1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
Reasons
1. The fact of recognition that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the ratio of 1/2 shares, and the fact that there is no special agreement prohibiting partition of the instant real estate and that no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of partition of the instant real estate has been reached between the parties, or that agreement on the method of partition of the instant real estate has been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may request the Defendant, a co-owner, to divide the instant real estate.
Division of the jointly-owned property may be selected at will if there is an agreement between the co-owners. However, if the jointly-owned property is divided by a trial due to a lack of agreement, it is in principle divided in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the price may be reduced remarkably, and the auction of the property may be ordered to be paid in installments.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428, Mar. 26, 2015). The requirement that the division in kind is not physically strict, but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and the use value after the division, etc. of the jointly owned property in light of the nature, location, and use value after
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The instant real estate is a sectional ownership of one household among aggregate buildings, and it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant real estate in kind by its nature in light of its structure and status.
Therefore, it is the most equitable and reasonable method to divide the pertinent real estate by auction and then distributing the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price according to the share ratio between the plaintiff and the defendant.
B. The defendant is the real estate of this case.