beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. It shall be put up for auction a forest land of 2687m2 in Jeju-si, and proceeds therefrom.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant (Appointed Party), and the Selected Party D own each share of 1/3, respectively, in Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. The Plaintiff, the Defendant (Appointed Party), and the Appointed D did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) Co-owners may claim a partition of co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act), and co-owners may request a court to divide the co-owned property if agreement on the partition method has not been reached. If it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the plaintiff, co-owners, as co-owners, may request a partition of each of the instant real property against the defendant (appointed party) who is another co-owner and the appointed party D pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.
B. As a matter of principle, partition of co-owned property in kind is to be made in a manner that makes it possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price. In the payment division, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and use value after the partition (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).