beta
Text
1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;
Reasons
1. Each real estate listed in the separate list of the facts of recognition (hereinafter “each of the real estate of this case”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant (the designated parties concurrently in question; hereinafter “Defendant”), C, the Appointor D, and the Defendant B 3/11 shares, respectively, and Defendant B 3/11. The separate agreement on each of the real estate of this case was not reached between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, D, and E, and the fact that there was no separate agreement on the prohibition of partition did not conflict between the parties, or that there was no separate agreement on the prohibition of partition did not exist between the parties, by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may claim the division of each real estate of this case against the Defendants, the other co-owners, D and E.
B. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered, and the "undivided in kind" requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, each of the instant real estate consists of two parts of the land and the building on the ground, so it is factually impossible or inappropriate to divide in kind, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the method of distributing the remaining money in proportion to the share ratio between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, the designated parties D, and E is a fair and reasonable method, since each of the instant real estate consists of two parts of the land and the building on the ground.
3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.