beta
Text
The amount of 24,701m2 in the Gangwon-do Incheon-gun shall be put to an auction and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the price.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition are jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants as indicated in the following table ratio of co-ownership with respect to K Forest land 24,701 square meters in Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The facts that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants did they reach an agreement on the division of the jointly owned property by the date of the closing of argument in the instant case do not conflict between the parties, or that the agreement on the division of the jointly owned property has not been reached
The Plaintiff’s share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants Defendant C 2,314/24,701 Defendant D 1,66/24,701 Defendant D 1,63/24,701 Defendant D 3,306/24,701 Defendant G 3,306/24,701 Defendant G 3,306/24,706/24,701 Defendant H 1,653/24,701 Defendant I 2,314/24,701, Defendant J 3,527/24,701 total of 24,701 Defendant JJ 3,527/24,701
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding that the claim for partition of co-owned property was established, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real property, may claim a partition against the Defendants, who are co-owners of the instant real property.
(Article 269(1)(b) of the Civil Act.
In principle, the partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal principles is to be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct the partition in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the partition, etc. of the co-owner, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct the partition in kind if the division is made in kind." Even if the co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's property is divided in kind, it includes cases where the value of the portion to be owned by the division in kind might be significantly reduced compared to the share value before the partition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). It is possible in formality even if it is possible in kind.