beta
Text
1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale by selling the return 6,987 square meters in Jinandong-gun, Jinandong-gun, North Korea.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff 3024/20961, Defendant C3414/6987, Defendant D549/6987, and Defendant B 6048/20961 share of co-owned land, respectively.
B. As to the instant land, there was no division agreement between the parties by the date of the closing of the instant argument, and there was no division prohibition agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of the instant forest land with the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property according to a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value would be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the partition.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). In this case, the health team, the Plaintiff and Defendant B wished to divide the price through auction, and Defendant C and D want to divide the price in kind, but according to the result of the fact-finding inquiry regarding the Jinan-gun, in the case of the instant land, it is possible to divide the said land into 1,650 square meters or more under the relevant Gun Ordinance. Thus, in the case of the division in kind, Defendant D’s 549 square meters and the Plaintiff cannot divide it by acquiring 1,00 square meters or more.