beta
Text
1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on July 6, 2006, and the deceased’s property inherited the deceased’s property by Defendant C/11 shares, Defendant D, E, F, and G, the deceased’s children, respectively.
B. At present, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). The shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are as specified in the separate sheet of shares.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
3. Determination
A. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendants, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff may file a judicial claim against the Defendants for the said partition pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. As a matter of principle, the partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind in a manner that makes it possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is possible to divide in kind, the auction of the goods can be ordered, and the price can be reduced remarkably. In the price division, "it cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use situation, and use value after the division.
(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 200.