beta
Text
1. The plaintiff A et al. shall sell the J-si J Forest 32,926 square meters to an auction and deduct the auction expenses from the proceeds.
Reasons
1. Facts recognized;
A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared the J Forest land 32,926 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) in proportion to their shares as indicated in the order, in Gyeyang-si.
B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not agree on the method of dividing the instant forest land.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. In light of the above facts, the Plaintiffs, as co-owners, may request the court to divide the forest land of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.
(Article 269, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act). (b)
The method of division shall be deemed to be the method of division.
1) Co-owned property partition can be divided in kind in principle or in kind if it is impossible to divide in kind or if the value of the forest in kind is likely to be significantly reduced (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). The court may order the auction of the co-owned property if in kind it is impossible or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of its use, and the use value after the division. 2) When considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the forest area of this case and the number of co-owners, conflicts of interest among co-owners, etc., it is considerably difficult to divide in kind the forest of this case into the forest of this case. If the forest of this case is divided in kind, it is consistent with the common sense to determine that the value might be significantly reduced if the forest of this case is divided in kind.
3. Therefore, the method of distributing the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds from the sale of the forest of this case to the plaintiffs and the defendants according to their respective shares is appropriate.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.