beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "Plaintiffs" of the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "Plaintiffs"; the 4th part of the 4th part, 14th part, and 5th part of the 9th part" is as "division among the defendants"; the 5th part of the 10th part of the 5th part is as "the defendant's division"; and the 420th part of the 1st part of the 5th part is as follows, except for adding the following judgment to the corresponding part, it is consistent with
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that the Defendants and net I purchased the forest of this case in order to install the grave of their siblings, and the judgment of the first instance court is unjust since the part that could install a grave is owned by the Plaintiff and the remainder is divided into the co-ownership of the Defendants so that the purpose of purchasing the forest of this case can not be achieved.
Therefore, the above woodland shall be jointly owned by the Defendants, and the Defendants shall divide the jointly owned property by means of paying KRW 21,110,400 to the Plaintiff in cash or by selling and dividing the above woodland by auction.
B. Determination 1) In principle, the partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal doctrine is to be made in kind so as to allow a reasonable partition according to each co-owner’s share. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in case where the price is likely to significantly decline due to the fact that the co-owned property might be sold in kind, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price. In the payment in kind, the requirement that “it cannot 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, commercial value after the partition (see Supreme Court Decision 90, Sept. 10, 2009).