beta
Text
1. It is deemed that the Defendants own 1/2 shares of each of the Defendants by dividing the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2...
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The real estate of this case is owned by the Plaintiff 1/4 and the Defendants 3/8 shares, and there was no agreement prohibiting division of the real estate of this case, and there was no agreement on the method of division of the land of this case until the date of closing argument of this case.
【The ground for recognition” did not exist, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading as to the co-ownership of co-owned property of this case, according to the above recognition facts, the plaintiff, co-owner of this case, may file a co-owned property partition claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to
In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by the judgment of the method of partition, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered, and in this case, the "undivided in kind" requirement shall not be physically strictly interpreted, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use of the article jointly-owned, the use value after the division, etc.
The phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned independently by the co-owner may be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division even if the co-owner's share is divided in kind.
In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial, the court is in principle dividing it in kind. Thus, it is not permissible to order the payment of the price without permission due to the subjective and abstract circumstances, such as the fact that there is no agreement between the co-owners on the method of division, without any objective and specific deliberation on the requirements that inevitably require the payment of the price.
Supreme Court Decision 9.9.9.