beta
Text
1. The sale price shall be the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the sale price, which is put up for an auction of 3,351 square meters of E forest in Seosan-si; and
Reasons
In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of E Forest No. 3,351 square meters (hereinafter "the forest of this case") in Seosan-si (the register of forest of this case at present includes the plaintiff 4,959/8,425, F in the register of forest of this case, 4,959/8,425, 1,653/8,425, 48, and 486/8,425 shares of defendant D in the register of forest of this case. However, in the judgment of co-owned property of this Court No. 2012Ga6341, 2012, 8,425 square meters of G forest of this case and H forest of this case before partition-si was divided into the forest of this case and H forest of this case and H forest of this case, the fact that the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the division between the forest of this case can be acknowledged.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the forest of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of division. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the division of the forest of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
Furthermore, the method of division is examined.
The partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division, or, even if it is impossible to divide it in-kind or even if it is possible in-kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to the auction of the co-owned property, by the method of so-called payment division by ordering the auction of the co-owned property.
According to the statement No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2-1, the fact that multiple registrations of provisional seizure and provisional seizure are completed with respect to the shares of Defendant C, and according to the above fact of recognition, if the forest of this case is divided in kind into the forest of this case and the part of the division of the Plaintiff and Defendant D, the above seizure, provisional seizure and provisional registration are effective. Thus, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case by the method of payment in installments.
Therefore, the forest of this case is therefore.