beta
Text
1. The amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale, which is put up for an auction by the Gu and Si/Gun/Gu.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed Party H, and the Defendants own the land of 767 square meters in Gumi-si, Gumi-si (hereinafter “instant land”) as indicated in each of the relevant shares in the separate sheet of equity.
B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff, Appointed H and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found in the above recognition, since the consultation on the method of partition between the Plaintiff, Appointed, and the Defendants, who are co-owners of the land of this case, did not constitute an agreement on the partition, the Plaintiff and Appointed H may claim the division against the Defendants as co-owners of the land of this case.
3. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property may be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owners divide the jointly-owned property through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may issue an order for auction of the goods only when the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced if the co-owners divide it in kind or in kind. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind in proportion to the share of each co-owner, and the method of partition shall be a reasonable partition according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court, rather than by the method requested by the parties, according to the co-owner's share ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 197).