beta
Text
1. The plaintiff shall sell the remaining money of 3,243 square meters prior to I in the auction of Jin-si and deduct the auction expenses from the price.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, the Defendants, the Defendant (Appointed Party), and the Selected Party J shared the land listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to each share listed in the separate sheet, and that the co-owned property partition agreement regarding the instant land was not constituted between the parties
The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, Defendant (Appointed Party), and Master J pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. The partition of co-owned property by judgment is in principle divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. The auction of the goods can be ordered only when the value of the goods is likely to be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind. In the payment division, the requirement that "it cannot be divided 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, area, use status, and use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.
in the case of a co-owner's act of dividing in kind, "if the value of the property is likely to decrease substantially, the value of the property may decrease substantially," also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner might decrease significantly more than the value of the property before the division.
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002).
In light of the above legal principles, various circumstances, namely, one of the land of this case, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the overall purport of the pleadings, are the land of this case, and the opposite side is the topography that is going back to the obsia, and is fair.