beta
Text
1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 shall be put to an auction and the remaining amount after deducting the cost of auction from the proceeds of sale;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the Plaintiff 18/99, Defendant B 27/99, Defendant C6/99, Defendant D18/99, Defendant E18/99, Defendant F4/99, Defendant G4/99, and Defendant H 4/999.
B. Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant B on February 21, 2019 due to the sale as of February 20, 2019 with respect to 27/99 of his own shares in each of the above real estate listed in the separate sheet 2-7 among the above real estate.
B. There was no partition agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant regarding each of the above real estate.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property based on the judgment on the cause of the claim is to be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the price division, the requirement that “it is not possible to divide in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, and use value after the division.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s co-ownership share of Defendant B among each of the instant real estate was set up on September 10, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). However, the Defendant’s co-ownership share of Defendant B among each of the instant real estate was served by public notice, and it is difficult to reach an agreement on the method of division between co-owners, including compensation for the continuation of collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 193).