beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who sold 131,901m2 to the public auction of the Gu-U.S. C Forest land and deducted the auction cost from the price.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 22, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to 1/2 shares of 131,901 square meters of land in Gu-si, Gu-si (hereinafter “instant land”). As to the remaining 1/2 shares of the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 8, 2019 with respect to the Plaintiff’s remaining 1/2 shares among the instant land.
B. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant prohibiting the division of the instant land, and no agreement on the method of dividing the instant land was reached as of the date of closing the argument in the instant case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the agreement on the method of partition of the land of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a co-owner of the land of this case, was not constituted. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim for partition of co-owned land of this case with the court pursuant to Article 269
Furthermore, as to the method of partition, the partition of co-owned property, in principle, or according to Article 269(2) of the Civil Act, if it is impossible to divide in kind in kind or if the value of the co-owned property might be reduced remarkably, the court may order the auction of the co-owned property to pay in kind, and if it is impossible to divide in kind, it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.
It is reasonable to divide the land of this case into the auction and the Defendant in the way of distributing the remaining money after deducting the auction cost from the auction cost, in addition to the circumstances in which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that it is difficult to divide the land of this case in kind. Thus, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case into the auction and the Defendant by distributing the remaining money after deducting the auction cost.
3. Conclusion.