1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

Basic Facts

- The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) is owned by the Plaintiff at each share ratio of 2/7, 3/7, 3/7, and 2/7.

- Until now, there was no division agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant building, and there was no division prohibition agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence No. 1, and the above basic fact-finding on the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, co-owner of the building of this case, can file a claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners, for the division of the building of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act

In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as the price can be reasonably divided according to each co-owner's share. However, even if it is impossible or possible in-kind form, if the price is likely to decrease substantially, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered, and the price shall not be divided in-kind, but the requirement of "in-kind division" shall not be physically strict interpretation, and it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in-kind in-kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division.

I would like to say.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the building of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the building of this case is an aggregate building and physically impossible to divide it according to the ratio of shares of the original Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff claims the auction division; and (c) the Defendants did not express any special opinion on the method of partition of the jointly owned property. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the building of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind.