beta
Text
1.(a)
The plaintiff, defendant, who attached the amount of 4290 square meters prior to X-gun to the auction and deducted the auction expense from the price.
Reasons
1. Co-owners who have the right to claim partition of co-owned property may claim partition of the co-owned property, and if the agreement on the method of partition has not been reached, the co-owners may request the court for partition;
(Article 268(1) and Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. The phrase that no agreement is reached is a broad concept that includes not only where the agreement was actually reached between co-owners but also where it is evident that some co-owners do not intend to respond to the agreement or are missing, such as where it is impossible to reach an agreement from the beginning.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of branch numbers), since it seems practically impossible for the plaintiff and some defendants among the co-owners of each land whose land is classified as “former” as stated in the Disposition No. 1, which are co-owners of each land and the defendant, to consult on the division method, such as not communicating with each other, the plaintiff can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the remaining
2. The Civil Act provides that the judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property may be ordered to auction things, if it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind with respect to the partition, or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the partition.
(Article 269(2). Here, "the price is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division" includes not only the case where the exchange value of the whole co-owned property is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division but also the case where the value of the part to be owned by the sole owner due to the in-kind division becomes considerably reduced compared to the share value before the co-owned property partition.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993; 99Da6746, Jun. 11, 1999). The share of the instant case by co-owner with respect to health units and attached objects.