Attached Form

1 The sale price shall be the remainder after deducting the expenses for the auction from the sale price of each real estate recorded in the register.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”) in the same proportion as the co-owners and the indication of shares in the separate sheet No. 2.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition of each of the instant real property, and there was no specific agreement on the method of partition.

[Ground of recognition] A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each of the instant real estate and did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, according to the following facts: (a) the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5; and (b) the existence of the claim for partition of the common property determined as to the claim for the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each of the instant real estate; and (c) therefore, (d) the Plaintiff may file a claim with the court for partition against

In principle, the division of the common property by the judgment on the method of partition of the common property shall be based on the method of in-kind division as long as it can be reasonably divided according to the shares of each co-owner, but it is impossible to divide the common property in-kind

Even if there is a concern that the price will be significantly reduced, the so-called method of dividing the price by issuing an order for auction of the jointly owned property shall be the method of dividing the price. The requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the price in kind in light of the nature of the jointly owned property, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). In this case, it is difficult to purchase the Plaintiff’s share because the Plaintiff’s claim for division of jointly owned property is unreasonable and it is difficult to purchase the Plaintiff’s share.

c) argument;